The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking a ministerial visit to Nottingham on Friday, 19 May? Accordingly, I trust the House will grant me leave of absence.

Fuel Poverty

Lord Palmer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to reverse the rise in the number of pensioners and low-income families experiencing fuel poverty.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Government's target is to eradicate fuel poverty in vulnerable households in England by 2010. In the 2005 Pre-Budget Report, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that an additional £300 million would be made available to tackle fuel poverty, taking the total fuel poverty funding in England alone to more than £800 million over the years 2005 to 2008.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will Her Majesty's Government consider a top-up payment that could be set against the credit for fuel bills, thereby alleviating the enormous geographic differences between people living on the north coast of Scotland and those living on the south coast of England?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I will take advice on the noble Lord's novel suggestion because I cannot answer it off the top of my head, although I suspect the answer is no. There is a variation. I have answered quite specifically in some ways for England because Defra is responsible for England, although there are targets for the United Kingdom. I have the regional figures, which do show disparities and high take-up levels, but I will speak about the regions of England today rather than about Scotland. Of course, the winter fuel payment will remain for the lifetime of this Parliament, which will be a considerable help.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister not think that there is quite a problem in that those who are least able to afford the fuel are the ones who have to pay by either pre-payment or key-charge meter? Is there any answer to that?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. It is even worse than that for the most vulnerable in terms of fuel poverty. Some 30 per cent of households in fuel poverty are not even on the gas network, compared with 13 per cent of the national population. Gas central heating is certainly the most effective way of keeping oneself warm. It is all very well me saying that you can save money paying by direct debit, but you have to have a bank account, and the poorest people do not necessarily have one. It is possible to save up to £40 a year by switching suppliers, but I accept that that does not really meet the needs of the poorest in our nation.

Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan: My Lords, although I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement last night that there will be no new nuclear build and that we now have access to money which we did not have before as a result of his taxation of the excessive profits of the oil and gas companies, does my noble friend realise that many households, particularly those with young, chronically sick and disabled children, will still not benefit from the winter fuel allowance that pensioners are receiving? Would it not be possible to use some of the remaining revenues from the welcome tax on the North Sea profits by making it available to poor and disadvantaged families by way of some form of winter payment, and can he pass that message on to the Chancellor in the hope that he might make a Statement in the autumn to that effect?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I will certainly pass that message on to the Chancellor, but I would not want the House to be misled by my reference to the winter fuel payment; I realise that that is specific to pensioners. Our target is vulnerable households; in other words, the elderly, the disabled, the long-term sick and families with children. The warm front scheme of £800 million over three years, which is the scheme I referred to, has already helped 1 million households since June 2000. Many of those households are of the exact type that my noble friend described.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, one of the best ways to help the fuel poor is to improve the insulation of their homes. A large proportion of that has been dealt with until now under the energy efficiency commitment, under which the electricity suppliers fund the insulation industry. The result has been a large expansion in that industry. Fifty per cent of that assistance has to go to the lower quartile of the income sector, which includes the fuel poor. I understand that the programme has been so successful that funding is now being reduced for the industry. Certainly, my understanding is that 80 per cent of insulation suppliers have had their funding from this programme reduced by 50 per cent Does the Minister have any idea of the Government's intentions to maintain the previous level of insulation improvement?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, as I said, in the Pre-Budget Report, which was only last November, the Chancellor announced an extra £300 million on top of what was already being spent, taking the budget to £800 million. That is not just for central heating, but also for insulation and other matters. I do not know how much the industry was spending, but the target is for vulnerable households. It does not apply just to central heating. It is for a range of assistance that they can get through the warm front scheme, which is managed for the Government by Eaga Partnership. As I said, more than 1 million households have gained since 2000, and many people—millions—have been lifted out of fuel poverty over the past few years.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, how do the Government define when someone is in poverty as opposed to fuel poverty?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, one does it by looking at the household and the income. As I said earlier to my noble friend, there is a range of people, and assessing the numbers of benefits available to people on low income or people with a disability, and reaching those vulnerable households, is done by means of demographics. It is a matter of people applying, but millions of people have been taken out of fuel poverty on that basis. In 1996, 5 million people were alleged to be in fuel poverty; by 2003, that was down to 1.2 million. I accept the recent increase, because those are the latest figures I have, but energy prices have increased and therefore that will go up. It is done basically through the income scheme and the income of the families concerned.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, if pensioners who pay the top rate of income tax of 40 per cent—which basically means people with a taxable income of £40,000 or more—were to be taxed on the winter fuel payment and that tax were handed to pensioners who are not paying full tax, would it help?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it would be a complication of the tax system. The winter fuel payment is paid across the board to stop the problem of means-tested benefits, which is that they do not get to the people you want to get them to. For those who do not need it, there are plenty of avenues where they can put the money, such as Age Concern or local schemes. If it was not paid across the board and there were an element of application or means-testing, it would not reach the vulnerable households we are trying to get to.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not the case that many of the people who live in these vulnerable households will already be on income support? Do allowances for heating come into the calculations for income support? I assume that they do. Is that not a means by which they can be adjusted—in other words, increase income support for fuel when it is necessary?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not think that that is the case. People are looked at on the basis of their income and I do not think that income support necessarily takes account of that. On the other hand, when applications are made for the warm front scheme, an assessment is carried out of the house or dwelling where the people are living to see how they can best be helped to save money. Virtually no one in this country could not save money on fuel by means of various adjustments around the house.

House of Commons: Reform

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consideration they have given to possible reform of the composition of the House of Commons.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government have no such plans.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, why is it that the Government seem obsessed with reform of your Lordships' House, which works, while content to leave completely unreformed the House of Commons, which clearly does not work? For some time now, the House of Commons has been losing powers to the European Parliament and to various regional parliaments and assemblies, yet the numbers in England and Wales continue to rise every time the Boundary Commission reports. Should not the reform of Parliament start in the House of Commons, where it is most needed?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the process we have started is a Joint Committee looking at the relationship between the Lords and the Commons. There will be a free vote in both Houses on the composition of the Lords. We accept completely that if there is reform in the Lords, inevitably that will have an effect on the Commons. We think that this is the right approach.

Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, before moving further into reform of your Lordships' House, would it not be appropriate for the Government to issue a White Paper so that Parliament as a whole and the nation might be more clearly informed of their thinking on this important issue?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is hard to imagine another issue on which more White Papers, royal commissions and other documents have been produced. What we have proposed—and there is agreement in both Houses—is that a Joint Committee should look at the relationship between the two Houses, followed by a clear steer from both Houses on what is to happen next.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords—

Lord Soley: My Lords, what I am about to say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not make me very popular in the House of Commons, so let me try my luck here. The biggest single reform we could make there would be to reduce the size of the House of Commons from 650 to about 450. We could enhance the status of MPs and councillors because it would prevent MPs doing councillors' work, thus enabling them to heighten their responsibilities. I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might want to give me a slightly circumspect answer; I ask him just to bear this proposal in mind.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, from my own limited experience, I find that proposing to reduce the number of people in an institution does not tend to be popular in those institutions. I simply want to make it clear that we have no proposals to reduce the number in the House of Commons and, indeed, I hope that the number here is not reduced either.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the problem with the composition of the House of Commons is the method by which its Members are elected. How do the Government justify the fact that they have a majority of 60 in the Commons on the basis of 35 per cent of the popular vote, and is it not extraordinary that your Lordships' House is now more representative of public opinion as expressed in votes cast at the last election than is the elected House?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not think there is any groundswell of enthusiasm for a change in the electoral system for the House of Commons. However we get there, the House of Commons produces the government. By and large, the government produced is the one the people want.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, given that the noble Baroness the Leader of this House thinks that the number in this place, which sits for longer hours and does more work than the House of Commons in scrutinising legislation, should be reduced to 300 Members who are largely elected, should not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor take more seriously the idea of reducing the size of the House of Commons, perhaps to 300, so that the taxpayer would still have to pay for only 600 salaried, elected politicians?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I understand that the party of which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, is a member suggests that the number of Members of the House of Commons should be reduced so that money could be made available for state funding of political parties. We do not favour the idea of reducing the number in the House of Commons. We think it is important that each constituency be properly represented and we think the process works well.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, in answering the supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, the noble and learned Lord prayed in aid the Joint Committee which is about to be set up. Is he suggesting that that Joint Committee will have powers to recommend alterations to the power or composition of the House of Commons?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, I am not suggesting that, my Lords. However, the relationship between the two should be the starting point for consideration of whether there should be reform of this House. If there is reform of this House, inevitably that will have an effect on the House of Commons.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, is that not plainly the point? If—

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords—

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, is that not the point? If the two Houses are complementary in the work that they do, and if one House and the nature of the work that it does are changed, does it not necessarily follow that the second House has to change too?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that the two Houses are complementary. I think there is widespread agreement about the role of this House but, although we may agree on the role, the question is: does it get changed in practice if you change its composition? If it does, inevitably there will be changes in the relationship between the two Houses.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, is it not that the Government fear that by strengthening Parliament they will weaken government, and that is why this process is not going forward very fast?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the process is going forward with real determination. This is an opportunity for reform if there is support for it. We are in favour of a strong Parliament and, as was said yesterday in a similar Starred Question, what makes Parliament strong is the way in which government Back-Benchers and oppositions function. That is what holds governments to account.

Benefits: Simplification

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first-ever Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what strategic steps they are taking to simplify the benefits system.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are anxious to simplify the benefits system and have set up a benefits simplification unit within the department to support this. We have also set out a long-term vision of a simpler, single system of benefits for people of working age. We will report progress annually.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he acknowledge that there is a difference between managing complexity and eradicating it? Will he say more about what the new benefits simplification unit is being tasked to do? Can he assure the House that its annual activities and accomplishments will be published in a departmental report every year?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's analysis. Clearly there are issues to do with the basic structure of benefits and the way in which the processing of claims is taken forward. A report on the simplification unit's activities will be in the next departmental report in a year's time. I expect it to reflect the progress made by the unit. It has already produced a guide to good practice, of which I will place a copy in the Library. There is lots of good sense in that guide, which, if followed, will make a big difference.

Earl Peel: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an estimate of the number of eligible claimants who are not claiming at the moment, probably because of the over-complication of the system?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have here a long list in relation to the various benefits. For income support, the take-up is between 90 and 97 per cent; for the minimum income guarantee, it is between 73 to 75 per cent; and for pension credit, it is between 68 to 76 per cent These are all by expenditure. I can let the noble Earl have a full list. Clearly take-up is very important. There are many reasons why benefits are not all taken up. It is partly because for individual claimants the amount from some benefits would be very small indeed. I accept that complexity is one of the reasons. The department has a lot of programmes in place—advertising, the issuing of leaflets and the use CABx and other avenues—to encourage people to make claims. I certainly accept that making the benefits system easier to use and understand is one of the ways in which we need to go forward.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that means-tested benefits are complicated because they have to assess income and contributory benefits are complicated because they have to track national insurance records? Therefore, does he agree that the sensible way to simplify benefits for pensioners would be to go forward to a universal basic state pension—not based on income and not based on contributory records—thereby at last recognising the contribution that women make to our society?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that was an ingenious question. My noble friend knows that I am not in a position to respond to it. Very shortly, the Government will announce their deliberations in relation to the Turner pension commission, setting out the way forward. I will be happy to respond then. Clearly, as regards my noble friend's substantive point, there are intrinsic complexities of either a means-tested system or a universal system. We cannot run away from the fact that benefits systems are by their very nature complicated. We need to simplify them, but it will be a real challenge to do so.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, surely the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is valid. The problem is that people believe that the more complex the administration surrounding all these issues, the easier it will be for people to understand them, but the reverse is true. Can there be some completely new, clear thinking on this? There is a groundswell of opinion from people who want to make the pensions system much fairer. We should take this opportunity and start now, and not keep harking back to the complexity of old systems.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there are some fundamental issues here. My noble friend Lady Hollis is suggesting that we move away from the contributory principle altogether for the basic state pension towards a universal pension system based on residence. That would be a fundamental change. It is one of the issues that the Government are considering. There are clearly issues that need to be teased out, but one has to be cautious about saying that the current edifice of benefits should simply be swept away so that we can start with a new system. These are complex areas; we are attempting to simplify them and are making some progress. But we cannot run away from the fact that, in terms of cost and administration, these are difficult matters.

Lord Addington: My Lords, how much thought has gone into simplification meeting the new one-stop shop interview process and into how these two are being brought together? If this interview process is to be carried out efficiently, and you are to understand the information that you are given, the two must be made to work together.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I agree, my Lords. On the development of one-stop services, Jobcentre Plus has combined employment and benefits services, so we already have an advantage from an integration of services. We want to build on that with the development of telephony services and with the use of the internet and call centres, all of which will enable us to provide a better service to the client. Of course, it is much better if the benefits structure can also be simplified and integrated to run alongside that, but there are complications. Issues of contributory, universal and means-tested benefits all have to be taken into account. However, I am sure that the direction referred to by the noble Lord is the right direction in which to go.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I welcome the simplification unit that has been set up in the noble Lord's department. But does he recall a former Secretary of State saying that, with 29 different benefits and more than 270 different add-ons, today's welfare state has more sticking plasters than Boots the Chemist? It is small wonder that it takes 6,500-odd paragraphs to describe it. Can the noble Lord explain how the proposed new employment and support allowance, with at least three levels of payment, will simplify the system?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my understanding is that £119 billion is paid out overall in more than 30 different allowances and benefits to around 20 million customers. The operation is very big and very complicated. On the proposed employment and support allowance, we have published a Green Paper setting out our broad proposals and I hope that within the next few weeks we will be able to announce our conclusions in this area. We have signalled that we want to move to a simplified and integrated benefits structure for all working-age benefits; when we publish the results from the Green Paper, we will be saying more about that.

Schools: British Values

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consultations they will undertake on the teaching of British values in English schools.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, citizenship education is already a statutory part of the curriculum and includes teaching about the values underpinning our democracy. The department has asked Keith Ajegbo, a leading head teacher, to review how more effective teaching of modern British history could underpin citizenship education. He will consult teachers, subject associations, community groups, young people and others. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority will consult formally on any changes to the statutory citizenship curriculum, which will require parliamentary approval.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister accept that there has been much discontent in some of the teaching advisory bodies about the quality of citizenship education so far? Will he also accept that this is an area in which cross-party and non-party consensus needs to be created when we are touching on something as sensitive as British values? Does he recall that, in 1989, the then Mrs Thatcher set up a national curriculum working party on the teaching of British history which failed partly because the terms of reference assumed that we all shared a particularly conservative view of British history?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, 1988-89 was a bit before my time, I fear, but we certainly agree on the need to build up consensus in support of any change and we will seek to do so. Citizenship education, as a subject, has been available in schools only for the past two years on a statutory basis, and significant progress has been made in equipping the teaching force to provide for that, including the training of a large number of additional teachers and the provision of a great deal of material for teachers to ensure that the quality of teaching in the subject improves.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, is it not the case that citizenship and values should be taught across the curriculum and not just in a single subject such as history? What plans are afoot to improve the teaching skills of teachers to teach values across the curriculum?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that citizenship should be taught across the curriculum—that is why it is taught as a separate subject from history. We are training a significant additional number of teachers who can teach citizenship both as a discrete subject and in conjunction with other subjects to meet the concerns that my noble friend has expressed.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am concerned that the Minister is referring to modern British history. Will he assure me that when we are talking about British values we are talking not just about ethnicity or modern British history but about all our history—our ancient and hard-fought-for freedoms and our culture and core values of things such as mutual respect and fairness, which bind us as a people?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness's last point. The concept of modernity is very much in the eye of the beholder—when I studied history at university, the concept of the modern stopped at about 1900, so the noble Baroness may have her wishes met in that respect.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, if the Minister would like a really interesting take on British values, he could do no better than to ask children. Does he agree that children normally have a well developed sense of justice and fair play? Does he also agree that the discussions that they would have in respect of British values would be more use to them than any set of values imposed by the Government?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the Government have no intention of imposing values on anyone. As for children's sense of justice and fair play, sometimes that can benefit from instruction in schools and by their elders.

The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that fundamental to the foundation of British values are truth-telling, fairness and hospitality? What plans do Her Majesty's Government have for doing more than teaching history in respect of these?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I hope that every good school would regard teaching in those areas as essential to its purpose without the Government needing to provide instructions on how to do it.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, does my noble friend envisage that teaching British values and modern British history would include educating young people to understand that unrestrained materialism and self-seeking in the quest for a fulfilled life, contrary to an inadequate interpretation of Adam Smith, is a snare and a delusion?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, by the time that students come to study the Wealth of Nations, they will be well equipped to understand the need for balanced arguments and the fact that almost all arguments, particularly in economics, have at least two points of view attached.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the strongest way of imparting British values in schools is in the way in which people behave in schools: the ethos of the school, the way that staff behave and relate to each other and the way that students relate to each other and to the staff. If that is right, it is much easier for a history lesson or whatever to illustrate to those students how modern British values came about.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. That is the answer to the right reverend Prelate, too.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Citizenship Foundation. The Minister described a patchy implementation of the Government's citizenship education. Do the Government have any plans for any form of accreditation of citizenship, given that without some form of accreditation many schools will give it a low priority?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we do not have specific proposals in that regard. However, as the noble Lord knows, we have developed a half GCSE in the subject, which is now the fastest-growing GCSE available, with 38,000 entries for the citizenship studies short course GCSE last year. We are also developing a full GCSE and an A-level in the subject, so that the availability of courses of high quality for students is being increased substantially.

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

HBOS Group Reorganisation Bill

Read a third time, and passed.

Business of the House: Ageing (S and T Report)

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Ageing: Scientific Aspects (First Report, HL Paper 20) be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Economic Affairs Committee

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Roper.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Union Committee

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Roper be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Goodhart.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Information Committee

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Jones of Cheltenham be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Smith of Clifton—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Water Supply

Lord Rooker: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat in the form of a Statement the response made to an Urgent Question in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State, Ian Pearson.
	"The UK has seen below average rainfall for 19 months. In particular, the south-east has been much drier than during the notable drought of 1974-76. The Environment Agency believes that the drought in the south-east has the potential to be the worst for 100 years.
	"Water planning is on the basis that each water company has a water resource plan looking ahead 25 years. Water companies also have a drought plan setting out how they will continue to meet their duties during a water shortage.
	"I recognise the public concern over leakage rates. Ofwat, the economic regulator, sets targets for leakage and, over the past 10 years, leakage rates have reduced by 30 per cent. However, there is more to be done, particularly by some companies. Since privatisation, water companies have invested £55 billion in water and sewerage assets and more than £3.5 billion in 2004–05 alone.
	"As the House will be aware, water companies in the south-east have introduced hosepipe and sprinkler bans to manage the drought situation. The recent decision to approve the Sutton and East Surrey drought order application is the next step beyond a hosepipe ban. I am currently considering the independent inspector's reports following the hearings on the drought order applications made by Southern and Mid-Kent Water".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Answer to the urgent Question tabled by my honourable friend in another place. I have several questions for the Minister.
	We have debated in this House, on 30 March, yesterday and on another occasion, the whole question of water and water supply. I do not blame the Government for the lack of rain, but one of the results of this shortage is that the management of our supplies needs looking at. One possibility is the concept of imposing water meters in households. I understand that Ken Livingstone said the other day that in London it is inevitable. If we move to meterage, what precautions will the Government or water companies take to protect the most vulnerable people, who, on the whole, tend to use more water than smaller households?
	Thames Water has had an appalling water loss record in recent years. I understand it has missed its target for the past five years. Does the Minister consider that there is enough power within the regulatory authority to get the company to address this situation?
	Much of the water is wasted through leakages. I have raised the whole question of investment and pipe replacement before in this House. I understand that a cap has been imposed upon companies. Will the Government review that, and what is the position?
	Next I turn to the question of new house build, particularly in the south-east and East Anglia. We have been assured from time to time that water provision would be perfectly adequate for these new builds, but I understand that the water companies were unfortunately not included in the discussions when the ODPM was considering the projects. Will the Minister confirm that, and tell us what the Government are doing now to put that right?
	Another question that was raised the other night when we were debating water was the number of applications that are coming in for individual abstraction licences. I am sure the Minister will comment on that, because obviously one man's abstraction reduces the supply of water further along the line.
	The Bewl reservoir is at an all-time low. How many reservoirs are less than half full, and how many have closed over the past 15 years?
	Returning to the house building programme, in which the water companies are supposed to have 25-year plans to cover their needs, is the Minister satisfied that the plans that were in existence are adequate under the circumstances, and, if not, what are the Government doing to persuade the water companies to reconsider this issue?
	Human health and safety is the first call on our water supplies, and the household accounts for 45 per cent. The restrictions being put in place will have an impact on businesses, tourism and agriculture. What priorities will be given to each of these sectors, and how will they be resolved? Will that be left to the water companies, or will it be dealt with by the Environment Agency?
	It is difficult to get a balance between raising awareness of the difficulties placed on the water companies and our needs as individuals without scaremongering, but I am very concerned about the long-term planning for good household provision of water and for business requirements, particularly in view of the growth in building in the south and south-east.
	As we know, there is plenty of water in Wales and the north and west of the country. Have the Government given any further consideration to having a national water grid? I know there are disadvantages to that, but we should not just dismiss it. We should actively consider it again.
	Those are a very few questions for the Minister. I should be grateful for his response to them. It is a fine balance to know how much we need to conserve and preserve. It could rain tomorrow, but unfortunately our underground water supplies are very sparse and even if we have many downpours it will take some time for them to be replenished. I again thank the Minister for repeating the Statement.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I concur that the Government are not to blame for the lack of rain. However, if they fail to take stronger measures in the face of the fact that climate change will undoubtedly make rainfall less predictable—that is what the scientists are telling us—and that droughts are more likely, they will, of course, be to blame. My questions relate to the measures that they could take.
	First, the Minister said in the Statement that leakage rates had been reduced by 30 per cent in 10 years, but that is only 3 per cent a year. Are there additional mechanisms that the Government can use? The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, was good enough to send a further written reply to the debate that I initiated on 9 May, to which she replied, in which she stated that in between the price reviews there were mechanisms for dealing with changes. Should those mechanisms now be brought in?
	Secondly, I refer to one of the first Written Answers that the Minister was good enough to provide for me when he took up his current position at Defra. I asked the Government:
	"Whether they have considered a national roll-out of water metering in the light of the water shortage".
	The Minister replied:
	"The Government recognise that metering is an effective method of charging customers according to consumption and that, with appropriate protection for vulnerable households, it represents a generally fair means of charging".—[Official Report, 15/5/06; col. WA15–16.]
	Given that that is the Government's attitude, why are they not thinking of rolling out a universal metering system? According to all estimates at least 10 per cent of water consumption could be saved.
	Further, does the Minister think that there is sufficient help for consumers in labelling of appliances so that they are not only targeted by the clever marketing of, for example power showers, but are aware of how much extra water they would use? That would apply to all sorts of white goods such as washing machines and dishwashers.
	Finally, I refer again to a more detailed written answer that I was given following my debate on 9 May in which the Government said that there were controls to prevent the waste, misuse and undue consumption of water in domestic and commercial premises. Irrespective of those people who are metered, I wonder exactly what is meant by those controls. In addition to the hose pipe ban and the drought order such controls should now surely be brought in.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baronesses' comments. I shall do my best to answer their questions.
	They both mentioned meters. At present there are no plans to mandate universal metering throughout England, although I understand that there is provision for compulsory metering in water stressed areas. We fully accept that that metering can save about 10 per cent of water use. At present all new houses have meters installed. Nationally, about 26 per cent of domestic properties have meters. The matter is under consideration and discussions are going on. However, as I say there is no mandate and no expectation of compulsory water metering being introduced throughout the country, but the relevant powers exist for water stressed areas, if they are needed. I was asked whether the powers were sufficient. I do not have any information that there are insufficient powers to deal with these issues.
	As I said in the Statement, the investment since privatisation has been some £55 billion; and £3.5 billion was invested in 2003–04, the most recent year for which I have figures. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, rightly raised, in a moderate way, the issue of new build in the south-east and East Anglia, and I understand her reasons for that. The water companies are required by law to have 25-year plans. They take into account, for example, the proposals for growth areas contained in the communities plan. That allegation was made when I was at ODPM, and I was able to refute it. I do not have the words in front of me, but it is not true that the water companies were not involved in the production of the communities plan. I remember coming to the House and debating that. It was alleged that the water companies were ignored. They are required to factor potential and prospective new build into their 25-year plans. So it is not a surprise to the water companies that the new build plans are there—it is their responsibility; but they were not excluded from the putting together of the communities plan.
	Applications for individual bore holes are looked at on the merits and circumstances of each one. We debated that the other day—just because one puts a bore hole on one's land does not mean that the water comes only from under that land. As a noble Lord said in Grand Committee, a spring 10 miles away can be dried up; and that has happened.
	I do not have any details regarding which reservoirs are less than half full. A considerable number of reservoirs are not completely full, as we have seen in photographs; but I shall seek to get that information and write to the noble Baroness.
	I have no information regarding the new build plans for growth areas. There is massive pressure to provide people with affordable housing in areas in which they have been born and raised and want to live—and there is enormous pressure in the south-east. But the new build plans have to be taken into account by the water companies. The noble Baroness rightly said that, in relation to public health, domestic water supply is the first call on the water companies. As we all know—and some noble Lords are better qualified than me—a clean, wholesome supply of water did more to cure disease in this country than any medicines and drugs, even before we identified the diseases. Then it is up to the individual circumstances of businesses, whatever they may be, and some use large amounts of water, including the agri-food industry. The water companies have been asked by my honourable friend to take reasonable decisions in the circumstances and not go to extremes. That is why there has been a hosepipe ban and the publicity. A drought order is the next stage in the process.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the water grid and she received a few murmurs of approval. I have a view on the water grid: we have a country that is unequally balanced, both socially and economically—particularly economically. There is an alleged source of water in the north that, suddenly, is supposed to be transported south to feed the ever-growing south-east. I think that there is something iffy about that. The quality of life in the north is far superior to that in the south-east, anyway. It is said that more people and jobs should be created and that there are plans for growth, but I have a couple of killer statistics to put to bed the call for transporting water. I am told that one person uses 150 litres of water per day, on average. A family of five uses 750 litres a day, which weighs three-quarters of a ton. There are 30 million people. It is not on. You just cannot transport water. That proposal is off the radar. It would be much better if we made other social and economic changes.
	The noble Baroness asked about climate change, too. Droughts are not unusual, and this drought is not necessarily an indication of climate change—although it may be. In the past 200 years there have been 10 multi-year droughts. Although I shall not read them all out, the last was between 1995 and 1997 and the drought before that was between 1990 and 1992. The 1975–76 drought was cured by Denis Howell—he dealt with the floods that followed the drought, as if he had made the rain. Before that, one occurred in 1933–34 and there was another one in 1921–22. In their 25-year plans, the water companies are required to meet the circumstances of the severe drought of 1933–34. So, with standpipes and drought orders, there is still sufficient water supply for at least one month's domestic use. This is factored to be an incident that occurs about once every 100 years and that is how it is built into the 25-year plans.
	This may be an issue of climate change but at present there is no indication that it is. These multi-year droughts have come and gone and we have managed quite successfully. Obviously there has to be publicity. Everyone was warned that we would have a dry summer but they were also warned that we would have an exceptionally cold winter, so some things do not work out as expected. But the warning has been given and people have had sufficient indication that saving water in any way that they can will be helpful to everyone. There are plenty of ways that water can be saved—there is enough publicity about that and there will probably be more—and the drought orders are brought in to give the companies the powers to take the necessary steps. We hope that standpipes will not be required but, if they are, the necessary legislation for them will be contained in the order.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what he said. First, given that we seem to have had a lot of warning of this year's water difficulties, would it not be better if the water companies built more reservoirs? We have plenty of rain but we do not have the storage capacity to meet the needs arising from the weather we have had. Secondly, can my noble friend explain why, at a time of water shortages, the water companies are making record profits? People simply do not understand that.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I will come to the point about reservoirs in a moment. On the latter point, since privatisation water companies have invested £55 billion from their profits. There is no competition between companies in terms of supply through pipes to the customer, but the water regulator could say to them that their profit distribution would be restricted if they did not perform well, and that money would be diverted, in the public interest, to investment in the infrastructure. That is a very seductive point and I have made it many times in the past, wearing other hats, as I have talked about the rip-off merchants and so on. But the fact is that the water companies have invested £55 billion since privatisation. Wearing one of my previous hats, that is one reason why we are bringing in water charges in Northern Ireland—so that we can get proper investment. There is no water charge there, so there is no income stream.
	The water companies have plans for five new reservoirs in the south-east of England and three extended reservoirs to be built between 2008 and 2020. The plans are public knowledge but planning permission has not been obtained and that will all be some way down the road. My noble friend is right that we need to save more water but reservoirs are not purely the answer. The mere fact that reservoirs exist means that water is removed from the environment, so we need to do lots of other things to make better use of our water resources.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's conversion to the theory of privatisation, but I am with his noble friend Lord Dubs. Thames Water is one of the water authorities with the biggest leakage problems. It is reporting record profits and, indeed, its German owners are going to float it on the Stock Exchange because it is such a good cash-generating machine. How can the Minister possibly be satisfied with the operation of Ofwat as regulator in these circumstances when the company is writing to people in London telling them to plant in their gardens cacti or other plants that do not need water, and that their supplies may be threatened and they may be getting standpipes? It is the regulator's job to prevent that happening.
	It is true that the Government cannot be blamed for a particularly dry period, but there is a normal distribution of rainfall and the regulator's job is to ensure that the companies prepare for that. I understand that the previous regulator of Ofwat encouraged the water authorities to reduce their spending on maintenance. Frankly, it is quite outrageous that consumers are told to share baths and so on, while the water companies are not doing everything they can—they have the resources—about the water that is pouring into the ground.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is true that Thames Water has a bad record on leakage compared with other water companies. I do not believe that there is any doubt about that. However, it has undertaken additional spending in 2003–04 and has spent an extra £200 million out of its profits in that period because Ofwat would not allow the entire amount to be passed on to customers' bills, which it was planning to do. In some ways that was effectively a financial penalty, but it gets the work done. Thames Water failed its overall 2004–05 leakage target by 10 megalitres a day—1.1 per cent. To that extent, on leakages Thames Water is a failed company. I do not know any more about the detail. I certainly draw the attention of the House to Ofwat and what has been said. For the first time since 1999–2000, in the past year, Thames Water has reduced its overall leakage. The company may have failed in the past, but slowly it is starting to put things right.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, does the Minister know that Welsh Water—Dwr Cymru—a not-for-profit company, which has been extremely successful and which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is now managing to invest its profits in infrastructure? One has only to go round Wales to see the amount of work and investment taking place in preventing leakage and such matters. Is that not a model that might be extended to other parts of the United Kingdom?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it sounds as though people have a lot to learn from the Welsh.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, my noble friend has said that he would not wish to roll out a full national system of water metering, despite the fact that at the moment water metering operates in only a quarter of the country. In qualification, he said that in stress areas one could have drought orders, which would enable water metering to be introduced, but that is a short-term measure. Drought orders and stress-area orders are short-term measures. This occurs not just occasionally but seemingly every few years. We want a long-term measure, which I believe is water metering, so that there is an incentive to be cautious in the use of water. At present, there is no need for three-quarters of the population to be cautious or modest in their use of water. Naturally, I entirely agree with the Minister that there will have to be subsidies and special arrangements for vulnerable and large families that are poor, but that does not alter my general point that at the moment the incentives go all the wrong way.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I share some of my noble friend's sentiments. Currently the Government have no plans to impose universal water metering. However, the mere installation of meters is a massive incentive for people to save water and vulnerable people would need to be considered, as we said at Question Time on fuel poverty.
	The regulations introduced in 1999 provide for the water companies to take forward compulsory metering in areas deemed to have water scarcity status. It is a back-stop provision. The first application for that status was submitted last year and approved by the Secretary of State in March 2006. Other companies may be considering applying. Companies have to assess the pressures on them and on their supplies and their access to water.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I live in the south-east, which is the worst affected area. The noble Lord appeared to say that the cause of the drought problem in the south-east is largely the size of the population and their propensity to consume water. Does he recall that, not many years ago, the Deputy Prime Minister declared it essential for 1 million new homes to be built in the south-east in not much more than the next decade? Was he aware of the problem that we have been talking about when he made that statement?

Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords. I covered that, because it was raised in the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the extra homes which are rightly needed. People ought to have a choice over where they can affordably live. Too many people are being driven away from where they have lived and been brought up; that is not right. We therefore need more homes built at a higher density. The fact of the matter is that modern homes are much more water-efficient than the rest of the 25 million dwellings in this country. They use less water per head, because of how they are built and their installation. Those factors were fully taken on board.
	The other question was about the water companies. The water companies and the Environment Agency were fully involved in the production of the communities plan. I am not blaming people in the south-east; it just happens to be where there is currently less water where water is drawn from. There is no blame attached to people for this, we just have to take account of it. But there is a large population in the south-east, and the water resources are not necessarily in the same place as the people.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, when the Minister was explaining to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the difficulties of transporting water to people, it occurred to me that perhaps we should resort to transportation of people to water. Does the Minister agree that, while people have a right to houses in villages where they have lived for generations, there has also been an enormous influx of people to the south-east from the north of England and Scotland? Can some long-term planning not be done to encourage these people to go back to their roots, providing jobs where their roots are instead of expecting the south-east to cope with the indigenous as well as additional population? When I was a schoolgirl in the 1950s out in Kenya, I learnt that the eastern coast of England was much drier than the western side.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, those in—I nearly said the ODPM—the new department will be looking to me to knock that one on the head straight away. What the noble Countess has asserted is simply untrue. The influx and increase of population in the south-east is nothing to do with internal movement in this country. That is a very minor part of it. The growth rates of the population are nothing to do with people coming from the north-east and Scotland. One reason people from the north-east and Scotland cannot come to the south-east is that they cannot afford the housing. There is a lack of labour mobility because we are an unequal country. There are different factors causing the growth in the south-east population, but it is certainly not internal movement.

Lord Methuen: My Lords, is the Minister aware of a 1930s scheme called the Grand Contour Canal, which I think was at the 600-foot contour? It was devised to take water all around England, providing both water distribution and navigation—or recreation, in this day and age. It would have covered the entire country to bring water from areas which had it to those that had not.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not aware of that proposal at the 600-foot level. I do not know off-hand where we are—I imagine we are below 600 feet here. Canals are fine. They are there as a resource, and may be necessary for transport and moving water. I do not know, but I will make it my business to find out about that plan.

Lord Monson: My Lords, it may help the Minister to know that it was the 210-foot contour line.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is the department doing any work on the economics of desalination? On the national grid, it is not a question of trucking water from one end of the country to the other; it is the task of building and constructing ducts—piping—from the north of the country to the south.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is some work on desalination. A pilot desalination plant—I am not sure whether it is under construction yet—is proposed at Newhaven. One is proposed in London, but I understand that, using his powers, the Mayor opposed it. An inquiry is about to start on that.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, everybody has ideas for fixing the problem. They are all fixable, but how much will that cost? To return to the issue of metering, is it not in the Government's interest to point out that everybody can have a meter if they want to and that the water companies supply them for free? There should be an obligation on all of us to try to save water, and the one way of doing so is to find out how much one is using.
	Secondly, there is a huge amount of ignorance in the other place, if I may say so, where a question was recently asked about why on earth the water companies dig up the sides of the street rather than putting the mains down the centre of the road. They really do not understand. People complain whenever they see leaks and the water companies get an enormous amount of flak about it. They try to do the work at night but are not allowed to because of the noise of drilling. They try to do the work during the day and get the Evening Standard and everyone else coming down on them like a tonne of bricks.
	We have to expect there to be a leakage problem. A lot of our pipes are Victorian. Some of the pipes that were replaced in the 1960s were made of stuff which has now disintegrated. It is to be hoped they now have the answer to that, but it is a national problem, particularly down in the south-east. We have to get it right instead of point-scoring on desalination plants, where somebody says, "You can't do that because of the energy costs of desalination". Metering is really the answer. The Government should take the line—I hope the Minister agrees with me—of saying to people, "You can have meters, so have them".

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I will try to bottle that question because the noble Baroness is a one-Baroness publicity machine for advising people what to do. She has told everybody that the meters are free. There is enormous ignorance about what happens when you are digging up the roads, and people must make the connection between the work to be done and what comes out of the tap. She also, of course, praised the Victorians, because if it had not been for them we would have been in the soup a lot sooner.

Lord Christopher: My Lords, what instructions are being issued if there are to be standpipes? I declare the same interest as has been declared across the Chamber. I live in the south-east and I understand that the water company has told the population that the holes that are being dug are nothing to do with standpipes. I do not believe that: they are too small. What instruction is going to be issued to get water from standpipes to people who physically are quite unable to get it for themselves?
	Secondly, will the second part of the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the number of reservoirs that have been closed be answered when the Minister writes to her? Thirdly, when the propaganda from the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has worked, will there be some guarantees that, because the water companies will lose income, they will not be allowed unreasonably to increase the price of water, which I understand has happened on the Isle of Wight?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not know what instructions have yet been given for standpipes. Currently, no companies have approached Defra to discuss the need for standpipes under the emergency drought order. Obviously, it is not a question of simply doing it without any discussion. It would not be the first time this has happened. My noble friend asked about getting water from the standpipe to vulnerable people. That must be dealt with as a priority, as indeed I am sure it was the last time standpipes were used.
	My noble friend's final question, regarding what the companies do after the effect of the drought to ensure that the burden is not put back on the customer and that they pay their fair share, is very valid. I shall make sure it is answered, along with the other questions. Although I cannot answer the question about reservoirs in a letter to noble Lords—I will write to the noble Baroness—I will make sure it is answered in the form of a Statement or something that we can put in the Library, because obviously this is a matter of general interest.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I have two interests to declare: first, I am a farmer and landowner with a licence to abstract water who has had a reservoir constructed on his own land. Secondly, I live in one of the drier areas of the country where we enjoy the benefits of inter-river basin transfer, so that, although Essex may have less rainfall than Kent, it is not as badly off in terms of water supply.
	I was a little disturbed at what the Minister said early in his remarks about reservoirs. He implied, if I understood him correctly, that they remove water from availability for use. The fact is that a reservoir is specifically designed and always used to take water in times of surplus and to store it so that it can be used in times of shortage. If it is not built for that purpose, it is not built for any useful purpose at all. I think that we should be clear about that.
	My question is this, however. I acknowledge all the success that there has been over the last few years in replacing the water infrastructure, although much of it is still extremely old. However, is the Minister satisfied that, despite that success, sufficient allowance has been made over the last one or two decades—certainly since privatisation, during which time we have really seen the huge expansion in funding for this work—to provide adequate resources to deal with the particular problems that we face and the monotonous regularity with which droughts occur?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord spoilt his question with his last comment. This is not a question of monotonous regularity. The fact is that there have been several droughts, but they are not that regular. One must look at the benefits and the cost. As I have said, shortages are not unusual, which is why we cannot allege that they are the result of climate change. But, let's face it, our record in this country on infrastructure replacement has not been brilliant in the last few decades. That applies to water, transport and rail. To that extent, the noble Lord hit the nail on the head—we have got to do more and we have got to do better. There is no question about it—not enough has been done, or quite clearly we would not be in the position that we are in now.
	The point that I was making on reservoirs—it is not an unimportant point—is that five have been identified in plans and there are plans for three to be expanded. The note that I have says that they are not necessarily the only solution, although they can be part of a solution. They may not always be welcomed by local populations. Reservoirs are still taking water from the environment and may not mitigate environmental problems. So they are not a solution. They are part of a solution, but building more of them cannot be the be-all and end-all.

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Thomas of Walliswood) in the Chair.]
	Clause 13 [Designation of alcohol disorder zones]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 80:
	Page 12, line 4, at end insert—
	"(2A) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the contents of any proposals to be made under subsection (2)."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving Amendment No. 80, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 81, 83 and 90 standing in my name. I note that Amendment No. 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is also in the group; it looks as though the noble Lord, Lord Addington, may speak to it. I will not comment at this stage on Amendment No. 88; at first blush it looks as though it may be a matter that I had intended to cover by Amendment No. 89, which is separate. I will wait with bated breath to hear what issue the noble Lord, Lord Addington, may propose.
	We ended our debates on the first day in Committee some three weeks ago by launching into the part of the Bill that sets out how alcohol disorder zones will be set up. Local authorities are being given a new power to designate a locality as an alcohol disorder zone where there is a perceived problem of alcohol-related disorder or a nuisance. Local authorities will have power to impose extra charges on those who hold licences to sell alcohol by retail and on those who hold a club premises licence where alcohol is sold to members and their guests. Charges would be imposed if licensed premises and clubs did not implement an action plan designed to address the problem.
	In our previous debates, we heard that there is considerable concern among those who hold licences that they may be unfairly penalised. So much is left to regulation that it is uncertain which retailers will be subject to charges. Clause 13 gives a local authority the power to designate a locality within its area as an alcohol disorder zone, if the conditions set out in Clause 3(1) are met. If the local authority decides that it will designate an area, Clause 13(2) states that it must publish a notice setting out its proposals and invite representations to be made within 28 days about both the proposal itself and what might be included in the action plan to tackle the perceived problem.
	Amendment No. 80 would impose an obligation on the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the contents of any proposals to designate a locality. Amendment No. 90 is the stick that goes with that, because it would ensure that Clause 13 could not come into force unless and until guidance and regulations had been published. We would expect such guidance or regulations to include a requirement that those businesses that would have to pay any charges imposed by an alcohol disorder zone be notified individually.
	Last October, the Government indicated in another place that such guidance would indeed be forthcoming. We have still not had sight of it. Will the Minister today tell the Committee when the regulations and guidance will be produced? In particular, can he assure us that the House will be able to consider a draft of the guidance before Report?
	Amendment No. 83 would require the Secretary of State to specify a maximum number of days within which a draft action plan should be published. The purpose of that amendment is to ensure that all parties are aware of the timeframe within which an action plan should be produced. It would also ensure that local authorities do not delay the drafting of any action plan. It would thus be a more efficient way to approach the designation process.
	Although I recognise that this is a relatively minor point of detail, it seems reasonable to suggest a timeframe to the local authority, as that will ensure that things do not drift. If there is an alcohol disorder problem that needs to be addressed, it is surely preferable that those who are responsible know what they have to do about it sooner rather than later. As we shall discuss under a later amendment, they should then be allowed proper time to put that action plan into effect. I beg to move.

Lord Addington: I shall briefly make a few comments on Amendment No. 88. The basic idea behind it is to have an implementation period for any remedial action—an eight-week period. Either you let the whole thing happen and allow people to see if it works, or you do not. That is the thinking behind the amendment. Either you have a chance to implement it, or you do not; it works or it does not. That is a brief outline of the thinking behind the amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for setting out the rationale behind her amendments. I will explain how we see Clause 13 working and, in the briefest possible terms, why we must resist the amendments.
	Clause 13 sets out the criteria for triggering a proposal for an ADZ. As the noble Baroness acknowledges, it specifies the steps that local authorities and the police must take before a zone can be designated. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness and by the Liberal Democrats relate to those steps.
	Amendment No. 80 would insert in the Bill a specific requirement that guidance be issued on Clause 13(2). That provides for local authorities' proposals for alcohol disorder zones, including the invitation to make representations and what might be included in the action plan. Clause 16 already requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance on ADZs; I assure the Committee that guidance on ADZs will be comprehensive and will include the contents of local authorities' proposals for them. I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will agree that the amendment is unnecessary.
	Amendments Nos. 81 and 83 would prescribe a precise timetable from the proposal of an alcohol disorder zone until the publication of the action plan. They would do so by removing from Clause 13(4) the requirement that the action plan is delivered,
	"As soon as reasonably practicable",
	following the consultation period, and then by requiring the Secretary of State to prescribe a timetable through regulations. The amendments would also then give the local authority and the police the option of further consultation on the action plan for up to 28 days. I can well understand why the amendment has been proposed, but we want to ensure that the ADZ process is undertaken as quickly as possible so that additional interventions can be deployed to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder effectively. It is certainly not in the interests of local authorities and the police to procrastinate.
	Clause 13 already sets what we would describe as a brisk timetable. There are 28 days for the consultation period, and steps must be taken to implement the action plan within eight weeks. So I do not think it would add value for the Secretary of State to specify in regulations a timetable for publication of the action plan following a proposal for an ADZ. We would not want to tie local authorities down to a specific timetable on this. The timing may vary from one area to another for very good reasons. For example, the consultation period may identify in one area a number of key issues that have implications for the action plan and that need to be fully considered. Elsewhere, this may not be required. The opportunity for further consultation on the action plan should be provided if that is required. The guidance will of course reinforce the need for the ADZ process to be undertaken as speedily as possible.
	Amendment No. 88, to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington spoke, would remove Clause 13(8)(b) and narrow the circumstances where the local authority could make an order designating an area an alcohol disorder zone—that is, move to the compulsory charge. Clause 13(8) sets out the criteria for a designation. There are two possible circumstances for designation: if, after eight weeks, the action plan is not in the process of being implemented; and if, before or after eight weeks, the local authority is satisfied that the plan will not be implemented or the steps in the plan are no longer being taken.
	The amendment would remove the second limb of the criteria. The effect of this would be twofold. First, local authorities would have to wait until eight weeks had elapsed after the publication of the action plan before designation, regardless of whether there was any will to implement the plan. Secondly, if the plan collapsed suddenly after the eight weeks had elapsed, the local authority would in effect have to re-run the whole consultation process. It is crucial with alcohol disorder zones that the action plan is implemented as soon as possible once the consultation process has been completed. To do this, it is key that important incentives are built into the process. Subsection (8)(b) allows local authorities to move to designation if it is clear that there is no will to implement the action plan. We think that that is critical. It is also critical that there is a firm understanding that there is a need to implement the action plan and that it is totally unacceptable if, after the eight weeks has passed, the commitment to introduce the plan disappears. Subsection (8)(b) provides important incentives which we do not think it would be right to lose. The amendment helpfully provides pointers to further areas that we will need to cover in the guidance on how local authorities exercise these powers. I assure the Committee that those issues will be covered in the guidance.
	Finally, Amendment No. 90, tabled by the noble Baroness, would require that guidance and regulations be issued before the powers in the Bill come into force. The regulations are essential for the policy to operate, and I cannot see how local authorities and the police could possibly operate an ADZ without them. The same obviously applies to the guidance. Clause 16 provides for the guidance and places a duty on the police and local authorities to have regard to it. So although the Act may come into force, the fact of the matter is that ADZs cannot operate without the regulations and the guidance. The fact that we have now agreed that the regulations should be subject to affirmative resolution should give some further reassurance. For those reasons, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary.
	The noble Baroness asked a specific question about the timing of the publication of the regulations and guidance, and whether it would be before Report stage. I cannot tell her that it will be, but what I set out in explaining our approach should give reassurance that we will not trigger these powers without the guidance and the regulations in place. Of course, we are fully committed to ensuring that we have a full and effective consultation on the framing of guidance and regulations. We want to get this right and make it work. We want to ensure that all the necessary stakeholders—to use the jargon—are formally and properly involved in helping us frame and shape regulations and guidance to give maximum effect to the legislation.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: As ever, I am grateful to the Minister. I know that he always intends to be helpful, but I still feel as though I am treading in treacle with regard to much of this Bill. I listened to the Minister's response to Amendment No. 88, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but I am coming to the issue from a slightly different angle. Therefore, it is still relevant that I should move Amendment No. 89 when we reach that stage.
	The amendments to which I have spoken were all intended to be probing. I accept of course what the Minister says. The Government expect that the system cannot operate if guidance is not in place before the police and the local authority go forward and start to designate an area and approve action plans. As I know from businesses that will be hit by the extra charges, there is a considerable degree of concern about the lack of knowledge on how local authorities will designate an alcohol disorder zone, which reflects back to our debates on Clause 12 on which businesses will be affected. That concern will continue when we come to other amendments about consultation.
	Although I understand what the Minister says—of course, the Government do not expect this to work unless there is guidance—the trouble is that we need to be able to tease out what the Government anticipate will be the way that local authorities proceed to designate. Unless we do that, we cannot expect those businesses that are currently very concerned to have those concerns dealt with.
	As I say, I am treading in treacle. I will try to pull my feet and the Minister's feet out when we get to Report. I am having meetings with the licensing trade as we complete the Committee stage. I will see how we can perhaps take away the very vague amendments in this group and provide something a bit more punchy. As ever, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 82:
	Page 12, line 20, at end insert "; or
	(d) set out the steps they intend to take to review the appropriateness of the action plan in consultation with all persons specified in paragraph (c), after four weeks beginning with the day after the publication of the action plan."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Amendment No. 82 is another probing amendment, which was specifically recommended by the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, the British Retail Consortium and the Association of Convenience Stores. The amendment attempts to formalise the consultation process with the licence holders about the action plan once it has been published. After publication, it will still be necessary for the plan to be reviewed to ensure that it is working effectively.
	We would argue that, if an action plan is implemented, it should be given every chance to succeed. If we ensure that it will be reviewed halfway through its operation period—I am trying to avoid the dreaded word that I used once the last time around: it is the Government's favourite word, which the Minister told me was invented by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf; it begins with an "s" and ends with an "s", and, to assist Hansard, it is not normally considered to be a rude word, but it is odd—those who have an interest will be given the opportunity to be consulted on how to make it more effective in addressing the problems that have given rise to the need for the action plan in the first place.
	That seems a sensible way to proceed. The amendment would ensure that the action plan received as much input from those who are expected to adhere to it as possible. If the action plan is seen as a collaborative process rather than as a precursor to an inevitable designation of an alcohol disorder zone by people who do not know what is going on, it is far more likely to succeed and achieve its aims. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand the concerns that have prompted the amendment, and I must say that I rather liked the way the noble Baroness introduced it, saying that it is an "amendment sponsored by". But I would argue that we do not think it necessary to include this provision. The amendment would require the local authority to review the appropriateness of the action plan in consultation with concerned parties four weeks after the publication of the plan. The Bill provides that if the action plan is not implemented within eight weeks or it is evident that it will not be implemented before the eight-week point, the local authority can designate the locality as an alcohol disorder zone. If that is the case, in our view there would be no need to review the appropriateness of the action plan, as it would simply not have been put into effect. If the action plan has been implemented and is not having any effect on the level of crime and disorder in the locality, the local authority and the police would be absolutely right to review the plan and not proceed to designation.
	The noble Baroness has put her finger on the issue in noting that this process must be collaborative. These plans need to be carefully spelt out and there must be proper timeframes within which matters can be considered; it is in that spirit that we want to see ADZs operate. Further, as I explained during our first day in Committee, we see ADZs as a solution of last resort. We hope that all the other measures taken before reaching the ADZ process will have dealt with many of the problems collaboratively, because that is the best way of sorting out these difficulties when they arise in our towns and cities. With that response, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Obviously I am speaking rather too quickly because I hope that I said that the amendment had been "suggested" by the wine trade rather than sponsored by it. I do not belong to a trade union, although of course I recognise the valuable work that many of them do, so I do not accept amendments that are sponsored by any particular group.
	As I said, this is a probing amendment. In recounting how the process is intended to develop, the Minister said that there would be no need for a review because, if nothing is happening and does not need to happen, so that designation is not necessary, why go through all the work of undertaking a review? I have no problem with that. If the Government are saying that one does not have to go straight to designation at some stage when there has been a void in between, that is not the difficulty. My concern, from a different point of view, is that the licensed trade could be undertaking a lot of constructive activity to resolve problems and to meet the action plan but that activity might not be recognised. So I was interested in the response of the noble Lord and I shall look at it again carefully because he has in fact made an important point that I have not discussed with outside organisations; I shall certainly do so now. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 84:
	Page 12, line 20, at end insert—
	"(4B) The local authority must have regard to any representations received when preparing the action plan referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (4)."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving Amendment No. 85, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 95. These amendments probe the extent to which information about alcohol disorder zones—I beg the pardon of the Committee. In trying to be quick, I have missed out the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 84. I am grateful to the Deputy Chairman for guiding me back to the right amendment. Perhaps the Committee would have been grateful if I had missed out a grouping, that of Amendment No. 84; certainly the Bill team look as if they might have been.
	We have already looked at the issue of when the action plan is to be published, but I turn now to the purpose of the consultation phase. I have teased out separate groups to address the issue of consultation because the amendments refer to different questions and different groups of people as they are affected.
	Clause 13(3) states that the notice setting out the proposal to designate a locality must require representations to be made within 28 days after the publication of the notice. The problem is that nothing in Clause 13 states that those representations must then be taken into account. It is a case of, "Tell us what you want, but we will not bother to do anything about it". I am sure the Minister will say, "Gosh, we would not dream of that happening; that could not possibly be the outcome"—but it seems an odd way of drafting the legislation.
	I recall that some while back, when we were dealing with the Courts Act 2003, we made points on the same basis. The Government looked favourably on us and found a form of words to reassure those who were going to be consulted that their representations would be taken into account. I am not saying that my amendment is beautifully drafted but I hope that it proposes a way forward.
	The amendment would make it a requirement that a local authority must listen to and take account of the views of those who may have to pay these extra charges after an alcohol disorder zone is designated. It is not a particularly onerous duty but it could give some comfort to the licensed trade that whatever representations it makes will not be in vain. It would not, of course, require the local authority to act upon any representations so made. The representations could relate to the size of the alcohol disorder zone or they could suggest improvements or alterations to any draft action plan. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendment would add to Clause 13(2) a specific duty on local authorities and chief officers to have regard to representations received during the 28-day consultation period on a proposal to designate an area as an alcohol disorder zone. It is obviously important that there is meaningful consultation and that the local authority and police make proper and full use of this. It is an opportunity to test their proposal to designate, including the proposed content of the action plan and the steps proposed to be taken under the compulsory charging regime. I certainly support the intention of the amendment but my question is this: do we need the specific duty outlined in the amendment on the face of the Bill? We do not think that we do.
	I heard what the noble Baroness said about the Courts Act 2003 and I certainly recall some of those debates. It is obviously in everyone's interest that consultations are meaningful—whatever that means in itself—but the real prize here, in our view, is that we need an effective action plan that seeks to reduce the risk of crime and disorder occurring, not the compulsory charge. The action plan can be delivered only on the back of effective consultation and if the people involved feel that they own the action proposed and can see the purpose of it. No doubt many of the propositions within the action plans will come from those who were consulted. Of course, as I have explained on a number of occasions, regulations and guidance will offer a template to ensure that the consultation process can best achieve this.
	As we have pointed out, we will be setting out the arrangements in both guidance and regulations. It is likely that these will reinforce the existing public law duty on the police and local authorities to consider representations. So it will be contained within the regulations and the guidance. This is what happens in relation to proposals to make designated public place orders, which I think we can fairly argue have worked well—certainly within my knowledge. The noble Baroness may have some experience of designated public place orders as well.
	I remind Members of the Committee that if the government amendments on process are accepted, the regulations to be made on alcohol disorder zones will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and will therefore have to receive the more considered scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that with that reassurance and my clear steer that we are expecting the process to be not completely dissimilar to the designated public places orders, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The helpful steer was with regard to the procedure being similar to that for public places orders; I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that matter clear. He is right that it is important that those who are involved in the consultation feel that they have an ownership—an interest—in how the plan will go forward. If they feel they are being unfairly treated, the new action plan could effectively not be implemented and one would end up with designation unnecessarily which could affect all licensed premises. In addition, if people in highly respectable licensed premises, who are already doing so much towards preventing alcohol disorder, feel that those initiatives are not being properly taken account of in the consultation results, they may simply say, "Why should we spend money on all that if we are going to be clobbered with an action plan that requires us to do something different when we have been working so hard?". It is extremely important that the interests of very hard-working licensed traders are taken into account. I accept that the noble Lord has tried to make a bit of an advance on what was previously in place—not a lot, but enough to satisfy me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 85:
	Page 12, line 20, at end insert—
	"(4C) When considering the manner in which they consider it appropriate to publish the action plan, the local authority shall have regard to the needs of those with disabilities."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: It really is Amendment No. 85 this time. I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 95. I have tabled these separately because they deal with accessibility, to which I referred briefly in another context at our first Committee sitting.
	The amendments probe the extent to which information about alcohol disorder zones will be made accessible to those with disabilities. Amendment No. 85 refers to the publication of the action plan that is intended to tackle a problem of alcohol disorder. Amendment No. 95 refers to the regulations that will require local authorities to publicise the making and effect of orders designating places as alcohol disorder zones.
	What measures do the Government expect to be taken to publicise information to those whose disability means that they need to make use of accessible formats such as large print, audiotape, Braille or Easyread? I am grateful to the Royal National Institute of the Blind for its advice on this matter. I understand that the disability equality duty within the Disability Discrimination Act went live in December 2005 and that that should have a positive impact on this matter. I took the opportunity last week to alert the Minister's office that I would be raising this issue today. Can he confirm that the disability equality duty is live and will have an impact, and can he explain what that impact will be on this part of the Bill? I beg to move.

Lord Addington: I support the noble Baroness. It will be interesting to see if we can get some assurances that all those bits of legislation that I, for one, have spent so much time trying to get in place deal with issues such as this. Disabled people may be disrupted, but it is also quite possible that they are part of the problem. Just because you are disabled does not make you a saint or a sinner, and maybe they have been out drinking too much as well.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We certainly agree with the principle of this amendment, but I am sure that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that we do not think that it is essential to have it on the face of the Bill. Local government, like central government, already recognises the need to ensure that information is published in a way that recognises the needs of those members of the community with disabilities. The noble Baroness is right to make the connection with the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 because, from December this year, it will amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to place a general duty on all public sector authorities to promote disability equality. That will, among other things, build on measures already taken by placing a general duty on public authorities to mainstream disability equality into the way in which they carry out their functions.
	Our guidance will of course need to take account of this and advise local authorities positively to consider the needs of all stakeholders—to use the dreaded word—when publishing any of the materials associated with the ADZ process. The noble Baroness gave some examples of different formats. We would expect that those would be exactly the sorts of formats to be used.
	It is vital that all of the information is communicated in such a way that all interested parties have access to the information. We are of the same mind on that.
	Amendment No. 95 is much the same. Providing information in an accessible format is crucial. We know that public bodies already provide accessibility sections on their websites. For example, even the Home Office's website, like other organisations', provides options for viewing pages in different typefaces. Again, our guidance will need to take account of accessibility, particularly in the light of the new statutory duties, which we expect to have a real effect. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: It was a probing amendment and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his assurances. I am intrigued that he says that the guidance that will be published will make specific recommendations as to accessibility. I say in the kindest way that that is belt and braces, because if the disability equality duty is live, one would hope that local authorities ought to be directing themselves to have regard to that in each and every thing that they do. However, if the Government are minded to ensure that the directions with regard to that are included in regulations, I could not object to such a matter; it could only be helpful.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is not in my brief to say this, but I would expect that the guidance would help promote best practice. There is a lot of common knowledge here and we want to make sure that the expertise is put in the right place so that there is an understanding. It is important that all groups in our society have access to that information.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I agree entirely and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 87:
	Page 12, line 31, leave out "such a scheme" and insert "a scheme established under an action plan"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is a technical amendment to the existing clause. It does not change policy, aims or the ways of achieving those aims. It is merely, as I understand it, a drafting measure proposed by parliamentary counsel. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 89:
	Page 12, line 43, at end insert—
	"( ) A local authority may not make an order designating a locality as an alcohol disorder zone if the whole action plan, or the majority of the actions contained therein, is being put into effect."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: This is another amendment suggested, although not sponsored, by the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, the British Retail Consortium and the Association of Convenience Stores. We had a canter around the edges of this with Amendment No. 88 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. As the Bill currently stands, under subsection (8) of Clause 13, the local authority can make an order designating a locality even if the eight-week period following the publication of the action plan has not expired.
	My amendment would ensure that a local authority cannot act in a pre-emptive way. We would argue that an action plan should be allowed time to work and for its effectiveness to be monitored and assessed. I am not looking at the situation, as the Minister did earlier, in which nothing is happening; I understand that it is not getting worse. I am looking at a situation in which local businesses have signed up to the action plan and are working with good will to deliver it. I do not want us to be in a position in which the local authority can then simply ignore all the work that is being done and say that it will go ahead and jack in the period of waiting and designate the area.
	The Government have emphasised that they hope that the action plan would itself be the means to solve the problem of alcohol disorder and that the action plan should be allowed to work its course. That underpinned the arguments made by the Ministers in the other place. That would give local businesses involved in putting the plan into effect the chance to ensure that they can co-operate with each other and with the local authority to contribute to reducing the problems, and give them the chance that they want to avoid having the extra charges placed on them at the end. My amendment means that, if they are making a real effort but have not got as far as finishing the work that is supposed to be done in that period, do not clobber them by going straight into designation. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is another debate about process, but an important one. Amendment No. 89 covers implementation of the action plan and would provide that a local authority could not designate an alcohol disorder zone if the whole action plan is, or the majority of its steps are, being implemented. As we have made fairly plain from the start, the action plan is the real prize here and the core of what we are trying to achieve. I cannot see that there would be a case in which a local authority would wish to move to designate an ADZ when all the steps in the action plan were in the process of being carried out.
	What about when the majority of steps in the action plan were being put into effect? I can see that there may be some cases in which the local authority may decide that, if this was the case, designation was unnecessary. On the other hand, what if the remaining steps were absolutely critical? In such circumstances, the local authority might well decide, perhaps reluctantly, to move to designation.
	We believe that the Bill is drafted to provide a robust and flexible framework within which those affected can work. When it is clear that designation is not appropriate, when steps are being taken to implement the action plan, and there is sufficient flexibility to manage situations where the action plan falls short on some of the steps, I do not think that we want to tie local authorities' hands in these cases. So the spirit of what the noble Baroness proposes is already there in the Bill's drafting, and the flexibility is there to proceed as she suggests. Like her, we do not want to see businesses being overburdened with unnecessary costs, because things are moving along as we want them to. That goes back to a point that I have made on several occasions before that ADZs are a last resort and that we hope that before we get to that point local authorities can work with the police and those businesses involved to secure the outcome that they all want to mitigate or deal with the problem.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for the way he has tried to set out the answer to show that the Government expect local authorities to behave in the way I want. The trouble is that that is not what the Bill allows local authorities to do.
	The amendment is all about process—he is quite correct about that—but it is important. He says that he cannot see that there would be a case where the local authority would go ahead if all the action plan was being put into effect. I agree that it would be extraordinary—I am trying to use parliamentary language—if it did go ahead with the plan in those circumstances. He also says that the Bill allows the authority to do it. It can just finish and say "Right, that's it. We'll designate".
	The Minister then asks: what if most of the action plan is being implemented, but the parts that are not are the essential parts—that is, those that would sign, seal and deliver the whole action plan? I rather suspect that this is exactly what will have to happen. If one has a period of eight weeks during which an action plan is to be put into effect, it will take some time to hit the ground running to be able to get the initial stages set up. I suspect a lot of the essential work will be crammed into the latter part of the period of the action plan. If, therefore, a local authority decided at any time, say halfway through, that it really wanted to go ahead and designate, it might in fact be pre-empting the ability of traders to put into effect the essential steps. They would not have had the chance to do so in the first part.
	I know the Minister says that the spirit is there in the Bill. I agree with him 100 per cent when he says that designation of alcohol disorder zones is the last resort, but that is not what this specific part of the Bill says. It does not have that rigour. What he has said is right, but that is not what the Bill says. The licensed trade feels strongly about this, so I do not think the Minister will be too surprised if on this particular issue I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 89) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 135; Not-Contents, 131.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
	Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 14 [Procedure for designation of zones]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 91:
	Page 12, line 46, leave out "either by name or, if appropriate,"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: This is another amendment about process. It is a minor probing amendment, which will be a relief to the Minister. Clause 14 (1) states:
	"An order designating an alcohol disorder zone must identify the locality . . . either by name or . . . by describing its boundaries".
	In default of there being guidance or regulations on all the matters before us, I have tabled the amendment to seek guidance from the Government as to how they expect that description to be made.
	The Minister will be aware that there is great concern in some areas. If an ADZ were designated by a geographical name—for example, if my area was designated as "Goldsworth Park"—would that not give all the people who lived and worked in that area a bad reputation? If the local authority seeks to be transparent about describing an area, and if businesses in that area qualify to pay the extra charge, it will be clear to everyone that the area is an alcohol disorder zone. My concern is that, in ensuring that the local authority has that clarity and transparency, one might also have a bad effect on property prices and businesses in the area. If one wanted to invite someone out for a pleasant evening—perhaps an alcohol-free evening—on a Saturday, one might phone up one's friend and say, "How about coming with me to the latest alcohol disorder zone?", and the respondent might well tell you where to go—but not to the alcohol disorder zone. People have a real concern that there could be a depression in property prices due to the way in which these places are described.
	There is also the problem of how one makes the zone clear by description. Do there have to be grid references on the Ordnance Survey map? Does one describe a zone by defining the boundary roads around that area? So I have tabled a probing amendment to ask how the Government are going to give advice on that and also how the local authority would be expected to give a clear indication, as you approached an alcohol disorder zone, that you were entering it. Or will there be no notices? After all, we have notices around Greater London from that personage, the Mayor of London, saying that you are about to enter the congestion charge zone. Instead of having "CCs" around, are we going to have "ADZs"? How will people know, or is that fanciful? Will it simply be the case that businesses in the area will be clearly told, "This is the area covered by an ADZ. You're going to have to pay up", and no one else will be told specifically how the area is defined? I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand the thinking behind the amendment. The noble Baroness is right to raise the issue in the way that she has and we have to give careful thought to how an area is described. As she said, ADZs might give a place a bad tag and we do not want that. We want them to be specific and refined and to do what they say they do.
	Our view is that ADZs will be very tightly drawn areas. We understand the spirit behind the amendment and it is vital that the designated area of the locality has strict boundaries so that those who may be affected are informed of their responsibilities. I do not think that it is necessary for us to follow the course down which the amendment leads us. The noble Baroness has already explained that it is a probing amendment, but its effect would be to remove the power of the local authority to identify the designated area by name and to require it to identify the area by its boundaries.
	I do not think that the sort of problem that the noble Baroness envisages will occur. It has not happened with designated public places orders and it is unlikely that it will happen with ADZs. We want to see an ADZ drawn very tightly around the area where it is reasonable to assume that the licensed premises within that designated area have a definite and proven link to the levels of crime and disorder within the locality.
	I do not want to pre-empt what will be in the guidance but clearly the streets will need to be clearly identified. It is unlikely, for example, that an ADZ will be widely described as covering a ward area, which could have the effect that the noble Baroness fears. I do not think that that check is required to qualify the actions of a local authority and the police. However, it will be important that full and proper consultation takes place so that the ADZ does not capture what it does not need to capture and so that those who are involved in helping the local authority and the police with the action plan and so on understand its full extent. That issue will have to form part of the thinking behind what is included in the guidance. I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: That is helpful. The difficulty is that we are stuck as we are waiting for guidance, but it is helpful that the Minister has put on record the rigour with which the Government will approach this matter. As he said, it is absolutely vital that zones do not capture areas that do not need to be within them, not simply because of the extra charges that will be faced, but because of the effect on other businesses that will find themselves in ADZs. Some premises, although not licensed premises, may find a downturn in their businesses, particularly in late-night shopping areas. The interest goes beyond licensed premises.
	I am grateful to the Minister for saying so clearly—I shall see how this comes out in Hansard, but he appeared to say it clearly—that ADZs would be tightly drawn around areas where licensed premises have proven links with disorder. Of course, he will recall from our first day in Committee that one of the greatest concerns of the licensed trade is that licensees could be subject to a charge when there is no proven link. I think that what the Minister has said is helpful, not only in regard to this very minor amendment, but also in regard to the way in which we may want to bring back amendments on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: moved Amendment No. 92:
	Page 13, line 3, leave out subsection (3).

Lord Thomas of Gresford: The amendments in this group deal with the variation of the locality and with the termination of an alcohol disorder zone. The purpose of Amendment No. 92 is to prevent a local authority being able to vary the extent of the locality to which an ADZ is attached by making a replacement order without proper consultation. A local authority should not be able to designate, for example, all the licensed premises within a town or within a ward—to use the area referred to by the Minister—without going through the full procedure. This is where the matter ties in with Amendment No. 94. When the clause refers in subsection (6) to new procedures being brought in by regulations it suggests that there would be a fast-track way of extending a locality or of varying a locality without the necessary consultation. If an authority does that, it should go through the full procedure of preparing an action plan again and giving the newly affected licensees an opportunity to eradicate any nuisance in the newly defined area by the measures that are agreed. The full scale of charges should not be implemented until those procedures have been carried out.
	The first part of Amendment No. 93—new subsection (5A)—puts what is in effect a sunset clause on ADZs so that they should not be allowed to roll on indefinitely but should have a set lifespan. The problem envisaged with alcohol disorder zones is that to a local authority they could appear to be a very nice way of raising money without ever interfering with the designation; a local authority could continue to collect money from the licensed premises for the policing of the town and so on. We believe that that is undesirable and that a term should be put into the legislation.
	New subsection (5B) ensures that if a local authority wants the alcohol disorder zone to continue, it should go through the procedures of publication, consideration of representations and preparation of a fresh action plan again. After all, if there has been an action plan, and it has been partly implemented—I refer to the debate we had a moment ago—then the local authority should take a fresh look at the situation and put forward proper proposals. That is the reason for these probing amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: These are very useful probing amendments, particularly on the importance of consultation of the new businesses brought into an area because of re-designation that were not part of the original consultation. I appreciate that in the real business world it is likely that all businesses will have taken an interest through the local chambers of commerce during the initial consultation for the original designated area. However, they may not have done so; particularly—as we will come to on an amendment of mine—as those with particular backgrounds may not necessarily see the chamber of commerce as their first port of call. These are useful amendments to explore consultation further.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for their comments on these amendments. I will run through them in turn.
	Amendment No. 92 seeks to remove from local authorities the power to propose a variation to the geographical area covered by an ADZ, and to remove the power to make a new designation order to this effect, revoking the previous one. We want local authorities and the police to be obliged to think carefully before setting up an ADZ. I am sure that we all agree that that must be a first principle. That thorough consideration must include what the key geographical area should be. Noble Lords will have noted that I was careful to say that we expected the ADZs to be tightly drawn. That is obviously to be the case, but there is no point in setting up an ADZ simply to shift the problem half a mile down the road.
	We would expect most ADZs to stay focused on the same area from beginning to end. However, we must allow for the circumstance of some unforeseen displacement. One must be realistic about that. Some other factor, perhaps as simple as a change in the management of several pubs in the same street just outside the zone, could mean that those pubs end up being just as much of a problem as their neighbours, perhaps as little as 100 or 200 yards away.
	The question of where to draw the boundary is always going to be difficult. Obviously, consultation will be important, but we must retain the power to vary ADZs because to do otherwise would have a serious limiting effect on local authorities and their ability to use ADZs effectively as part of a broader package of weapons for reducing alcohol-fuelled disorder. The factors are the need for flexibility, perhaps taking account of changes in management and, perhaps, some spin-off effect from displacement—which one can fairly accept might be an outcome.
	Amendment No. 93, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, clearly explained, would terminate an ADZ a year after compulsory charging began. It would require the local authority and the police—not, I noted, the local chief officer of police—to go back to square one if they believed that the ADZ should continue. I can understand why the noble Lord has tabled the amendment, and agree that a year is quite a long time. In many cases, ADZs may well be lifted in a shorter timeframe. The problem may well abate; the action may well have been effective; it may have done the job it was supposed to, and it would be right to bring it to a close. It would be surprising if more than a handful of ADZs lasted longer than a year, because that would suggest a somewhat larger, more persistent, problem.
	There may, however, be some intractable areas where that is the case, where businesses are recalcitrant and even the stimulation of an ADZ is not having the desired impact. I would have thought that, if the scheme works as we see it working, that should not be a frequent occurrence, but there will be occasions when it is. For that reason I want to resist including a sunset clause of a year, which obliges going back to square one.
	Amendment No. 94 would remove the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out additional procedures to be followed relating to designating an area as an ADZ or revoking that order, presumably to give local authorities and the police less room for manoeuvre. We are as confident as we can be in advance of implementation that the procedures for designating an area as an ADZ and for revoking that designation are right. We will supplement those provisions with guidance on a range of the more detailed points. But however well prepared we are now, designations are bound to raise new issues over time. Some of them will be suitable for addressing in the guidance, but others should no doubt have the force of statute behind them. It is for those reasons that I resist the amendments, though I understand why the noble Lord wants to put a full stop on the operation of an ADZ, and why he wants to ensure that variations to ADZs are constrained. I hope that, having heard my remarks, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Of course we accept there should be flexibility. The question is: how should that flexibility be exercised? If there are particular recalcitrant areas, my point is that they should be dealt with by taking a fresh look at the problem. That is why we want to go back to the original procedures. That is why we want to give room for the local authority to make its case, for there to be representations and discussion, and for the chief officer of police and the local authority to get together and think, "Well, it didn't work last time, how can we make it work this time?" I am opposing the rollover, which would be very expensive for licensees and a great temptation for local authorities as a revenue-raising order. Between now and Report we might consider how we can best guard against that sort of problem. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 93 to 95 not moved.]
	Clause 14 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 96 to 100 not moved.]
	Clause 15 agreed to.
	Clause 16 [Guidance about the designation of zones]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 101:
	Page 14, line 22, after "certificates;" insert—
	"( ) business associations that he considers represent the particular interests of ethnic minorities;"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 102. We return to the consultation process. Clause 16 deals with guidance about how local authorities and the police should exercise their powers and duties in relation to the alcohol disorder zones. It is an important clause, because the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under the duties set out in subsection (1) can relate to any part of Chapter 2 of the Bill. Subsection (3) lists those whom the Secretary of State must consult. It is rather a vague list because it does not state the name of an organisation. It says that there are persons whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of various groups. So paragraphs (a) to (e) cover various groups, but we do not know who will be approached, and then paragraph (f) is the catch-all for anybody else the Secretary of State thinks is the right person to approach. That kind of flexibility can be extremely useful, but we need to ensure that those with a relevant interest will be consulted. The list covers representatives from local authorities, the police, the licensed trade and holders of club premises certificates.
	The amendments I have tabled make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to consult business associations that represent ethnic minorities. The reason for my amendments is that it has been brought to my attention that certain ethnic minority communities within the United Kingdom contain a higher number of licensed businesses per capita than the national average. Therefore, any measures that affect licensed businesses may have a greater effect on those communities than they would on British society as a whole. I am told that those who run such businesses might have further problems, perhaps in understanding new legislation, simply because they do not go to every government website and look up the relevant legislation—which of us really does? So how does one find out?
	The particular example I have been given is of the Chinese community. This will not come as a surprise to the Minister because he took part in our debates earlier this year on the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill. He will recall that a very powerful speech at Second Reading by Lord Chan made noble Lords from across the House more aware of the emerging participation in democracy by the Chinese community, particularly in north London, as it worked together with other communities, including the Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities.
	I am told that there is concern that the powers contained in Chapter 2 could impose an unnecessary and disproportionate burden on restaurants and takeaways with no history of problems with customers who drink too much alcohol. There is a perception that the Government need to take extra steps to consult representatives of this community and other ethnic minorities who might feel more at risk of not having their views taken into account in any consultation.
	I am aware that in a Written Answer in another place the Government sought to give an assurance that restaurants would not necessarily be covered. Clause 12 contains powers to ensure that certain businesses are excluded from the extra charge. It is the vagueness of that which has alarmed some communities. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the guidance issued to local authorities and the police will include suggestions on how they should go about the consultation process to ensure they reach the views of those ethnic communities.
	The other groups that it has been suggested to me should be consulted include representatives of residents, victims of crime and club members. Those are not covered in paragraphs (a) to (e) although I realise that the Minister may say that they fall under the catch-all paragraph (f). I would find it very helpful if he could give that assurance. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clause 16 provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the relevant parties on the exercise of their powers in relation to alcohol disorder zones.
	The Bill specifies those interested parties whom the Secretary of State must consult before issuing or revising this guidance. There is always a bit of a problem with lists. Lists, particularly this one, cannot always be exhaustive. However, it includes the main players and provides for others to be consulted as is seen fit. So there is a "core" list, if you like, and the added bonus of being flexible about who is included.
	The noble Baroness's amendment, as she has explained very carefully, would specify additional interested persons to be consulted. She has spelt out who they are. They would represent ethnic minority businesses, victims of crime, local residents, consumers and club members.
	We have no difficulties with that list. We welcome the intention behind the amendments. It is important that we consult as widely as possible with those who might have an interest in the policy and how it is administered. I agree that the interests highlighted are very important, for the reasons that the noble Baroness explained and for one about which we agreed earlier: that groups could feel excluded by how issues are communicated. It is very important that people are included and feel involved in the process. We want to ensure that the consultation takes positive account of them.
	The question is: do we need to amend the Bill to ensure that that happens? I think not. As I said, the list of interest groups in Clause 16(3) is not intended to be exhaustive. We provide for the Secretary of State to consult other persons, with the degree of flexibility for which I have argued. We do not think that it is necessary to add to the interest groups already listed, simply because the list could become endless.
	However, I undertake to ensure that the draft guidance is placed on the Home Office website, thereby allowing persons representing the interests listed in the amendments to comment on the guidance. Although websites are not always accessible to all, it is a fact of life that they are becoming increasingly popular. The number of hits, even on Home Office websites, runs into millions.
	I hope that the noble Baroness will be happy with that undertaking. I leave as a thought that we need to ensure that we are proactive rather than passive in our consultation, so that we go out to seek views. I am sure that when it comes to drafting the guidance, proactivity on our part will reap a dividend in including the comments, views and thoughts of those groups, especially ethnic minority businesses, which do not always feel that they have a fair say or a fair crack when they are consulted on matters of importance to them.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: That was very helpful and took us further forward. Of course, the Government do not like to have lists because, as the Minister says, they can go on for ever. Oppositions always like to use amendments such as this to tease out what the Government really mean. The undertaking that the Minister has given certainly satisfies me. His description of the importance of consultation being proactive is the most important part of his answer. I undertake to ensure that his response is made available to the north London Chinese community. I hope that it will give them as much assurance as it has given me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
	Clause 16 agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Supplemental provisions for Chapter 2]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 103:
	Page 15, line 4, leave out from "instrument" to end of line 5.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Following the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee suggesting that we use the affirmative resolution procedure for the adoption of regulations under the Bill, we are more than happy to do that. I am sure that noble Lords will welcome the opportunity to debate the regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has proposed an amendment with the same effect as that of the government amendment. I hope that, having seen our amendment, he will feel able not to move his. Our amendment effectively implements the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: We are happy not to move our amendment, as the government amendment has the same effect.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 105:
	Page 15, line 11, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State must not make regulations containing (with or without other provision) any provision that he is authorised to make by this Chapter unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Pendry: moved Amendment No. 106:
	Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
	"SPORTS GROUNDS: EXEMPTION FROM PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY REGULATION
	In Schedule 2 to the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (c. 12) (door supervisors etc for public houses, clubs and comparable venues) after paragraph 8(3)(d) insert—
	"( ) on any occasion on which a licence is in force in respect of the premises under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and where they are being used wholly or mainly for purposes for which such a licence is required, other than at a football match designated as such for the purposes of Part 1 of the Football Spectators Act 1989"."

Lord Pendry: Amendment No. 106, which stands in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran, Lord Addington and Lord Hoyle, seeks to address an anomaly inadvertently created by the Private Security Industry Act 2001, which has led to the unnecessary and burdensome regulation of stewards at sports grounds by the Security Industry Authority. Before I cover much of this in detail, I declare an interest by reminding the Chamber that I am chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Sports Group as well as president of the Football Foundation, having served as chairman of that body and its predecessor, the Football Trust.
	The Minister will recall that I expressed these concerns briefly on Second Reading, as did other noble Lords—particularly the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Addington. But it is worth reminding the Chamber that the Private Security Industry Act 2001 was intended to raise security standards on licensed premises and to reduce criminality in the security sector. In effect, it was intended to deal with bouncers and wheel-clampers. It is worth noting that the Government have intended to regulate the private security industry since March 1999, and at no stage since then—the White Paper, the passing of the Bill and the establishment of the Security Industry Authority—has there been any consultation on matters with any English sporting authority.
	Under the 2001 Act, the SIA is required to communicate with and to consult key stakeholders. I could go through a whole list of those who were consulted, but I will not. In all, 51 organisations were consulted. Yet again, however, not one organisation that represents any sporting body was consulted. So it is unsurprising that sporting bodies are amazed that the Act was drafted in such a way that it inadvertently caught sports stewards within its remit. Indeed, it is clear that not only sport was surprised by the sudden appearance of the SIA on its territory. By happy chance of fate, the Minister who took the original Act through this House is now once again at the Dispatch Box for this Bill. He will recall that he told this House during the passage of that Bill that the Private Security Industry Act 2001 would not apply to in-house sports stewards. More recently, Paul Goggins, the then Home Office Minister in charge of this legislation in the other place, told a sporting audience at the CCPR last October that it was not envisaged that the Act would apply to sport. We now know that it does. He said that we needed to find a way of dealing with it. At the same meeting he promised to consider the possibility of amending primary legislation to correct this anomaly. Today, this Chamber has that chance.
	Proportionality is key to the debate. There is no evidence of criminality or poor standards in the stewarding of security at sporting events. Yet the cost of licensing them under the SIA is prohibitively high. For many stewards involved in quite standard activity, the requisite qualifications would cost several hundred pounds and require hours to be devoted to training time. The Better Regulation Task Force has reviewed the matter and concluded that sport should not be regulated in this way. Clearly, the financial and administrative costs of licensing enough stewards to work at events held at venues such as Twickenham, Lord's and Wimbledon championships would be huge. And we are not talking simply about the loss of financial revenue. As well as threatening to increase costs for sports events, it also threatens to divert resources away from investing in effective stewarding to licensing costs and training procedures that are not appropriate. It would reduce the levels of protection at our sports grounds, where those who run them are deservedly proud of their worldwide claim on safety standards.
	This amendment, which I am pleased has received widespread support across all sides of the Chamber, is intended to establish a point of principle; namely, that sports grounds already regulated through a safety certificate mechanism overseen by local authorities and the police should be exempt from the SIA licensing. That would give sport the same exclusion already applied to other sectors, such as cinemas and theatres. There is no reduction in standards of public safety as those safety licensing requirements would still apply.
	It was perhaps no coincidence that on the same day that I raised the issue at Second Reading, the Home Office published a consultation document on the subject. Since then there have been meetings between the Home Office, the SIA and some of the major sporting governing bodies, including those of Rugby Union, Rugby League, tennis and cricket. I am very encouraged to have received feedback, as no doubt have many of my colleagues, from these meetings. I am told that they have been very constructive. The Home Office is now actively looking at bringing forward measures that would have exactly the same effect as the spirit of this amendment. This would include making sure that all sports stadia covered not only by the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 but also by the 1987 fire safety certificates will be excluded from the SIA licensing.
	I look forward to the Minister's reply. It is important that the Minister makes a clear indication of the timetable he proposes in order to address this issue. I am told that the consultation is due to end on 15 June. It would reassure me, and my noble friends who support this amendment, if this Chamber is given assurance from him that Report stage will be scheduled after that date, so that we have time to consider the best way forward. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran: I support the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, on this amendment. I thank the Minister and his colleagues for the consultations and time that we have spent debating this outside your Lordships' House. We have had meetings with not only the Home Office but also the Minister of Sport and others. I am comfortable that the Government are moving to correct what I am sure was an unintended error leading to unintended consequences, which has brought us to where we are.
	My major concerns are twofold. First, there are a lot of sporting events being stewarded without licences, which are therefore technically in breach of the law. I understand that private agreements have been reached between police forces, or whichever are the necessary authorities, and these organisations. But that is not a satisfactory state of affairs.
	The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, has made most of the key points. But the second point that I would like to enforce is that it is clearly a case of over-regulation, which I know was unintended—at least I believe that it was unintended. I hope that at Report stage, the Minister will reassure us of that by bringing forward his own amendment. If the Government do not see their way to doing that, life will be very difficult in the sporting world. In part, that will be because of the bureaucracy that this brings, but much more so because of the cost that it will bring. There is not nearly enough money in British sport to do the things that we want for training athletes, footballers and cricketers at the lower echelons. Sure, there is tons of money in professional football—far too much in my opinion. If this law stands unchanged, it will put an unnecessary drain on both the human and financial resources of sports clubs and sports men and women right across the kingdom. I support the amendment.

Lord Addington: Perhaps I may briefly add my voice to those who support this amendment. I believe that this is a case of the cock-up school of history being proven correct. We have seen it: let us do something about it. I am afraid that I was unable to get to most of the meetings due to other duties. However, I thank the Minister for his invitation. The feedback I got was that basically everyone has accepted that it was a straightforward cock-up. They got it wrong in the original legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, said, it was designed to deal with another problem and it has brought in others by accident. We now have an opportunity to correct it.
	If the Minister can give us an assurance today that the problem will be dealt with by a government amendment or, better still, by helping the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, to draft a correct amendment—that would be appropriate considering the amount of work he has put into this—we would be much happier. We have all identified a real problem caused by a mistake. Let us just correct it and move on.

Lord Hoyle: I rise only briefly because most of the points have been made. I declare an interest as chairman of the Warrington Wolves Rugby League Club, but it is not only rugby league clubs that have approached me about this. I have also heard from rugby union representatives, the Lawn Tennis Association and the ECB. It is the cost of the provision that has set alarm bells ringing in all of these sports bodies if it goes ahead. As has been explained, it is absolutely unnecessary. Surely what applies to security guards and nightclub bouncers does not need to apply to well regulated sports and sports clubs. You need only look at what has been happening in all the sports I have mentioned. There is no violence and no crowd trouble because these events are well stewarded. It is therefore ridiculous that we find ourselves in this position. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Pendry has explained in his usual way what Ministers will have to do to try and get themselves out of the mess they have created, because this is an anomaly which should not be in the Bill.
	The timetable is important since we are in Committee. Whatever the outcome of the deliberations—I hope they will be positive and that we will be given a suitable amendment to get rid of this provision—we want the opportunity, in not pressing the amendment today, to take a different attitude if the proposal is not satisfactory. I am quite certain and hopeful that it will be satisfactory, but our fate lies in the hands of the Minister and his colleagues.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I, too, rise briefly to support my noble friend and to apologise to him for missing the opening sentences of his speech. I was at another meeting elsewhere in the building. This is clearly an unsatisfactory situation that has come about largely by accident. If an amendment like this one were to be drafted and incorporated into the Bill at a later stage, it would not lead in any sense to a diminution of safety standards at our major stadiums. At this point I should declare an interest as vice-chairman of the Cardiff Millennium Stadium. We certainly would not even contemplate using an amendment to the Private Security Industry Act 2001 as an excuse for reducing our stewarding and safety precautions at the stadium. The same goes for the Warrington rugby league club and, indeed, for all football clubs covered by the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975.
	What we are talking about is a large number of voluntary sports organisations that will find themselves bearing a financial burden which it was never intended should be placed on them. I hope very much that, when he replies, my noble friend is able to give us some comfort by saying that the Government are aware of this and intend to do something about it at a later stage of the Bill.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, and my noble friend Lord Glentoran for raising this issue, and I know that very constructive talks have been going on with the Government. We all agree that this is an unintentional outcome, and I agree in particular with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester: the change we seek to achieve will not reduce public safety. That, I am sure, underpins everything that I hope will be agreed between the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, my noble friend and the Government.
	It has been said that there have been private agreements between police forces and sports authorities. At the moment people are operating, in a sense, in contravention of the law by not having to pay the extra sum but still trying to ensure appropriate levels of safety. That is something which cannot continue; the position has to be regularised. Indeed, I was interested to note that the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, specifically asked for assurances that stadia would be excluded, that they would not have to be caught within these provisions.
	I do not think I have yet heard a noble Lord refer to the position being faced by the golfing organisations. I will do so because I have a personal interest in golf and I have had contact with those who steward the major events of the European tour and the PGA in this country. I know that they have been in negotiations with the SIA with regard to how they should proceed. They have been taking every responsible step they can to ensure that there is no physical contact between the stewards who generally marshal the various holes in a golf competition and the public. They have been training their stewards more than normally is the case. They say, for example, "Never use physical force when dealing with the crowd", but, of course, anyone like me who has attended golf tournaments and observed how golf should be played—unlike how I play it—realises that there are times when stewards have to be in physical contact because of the way one is marshalling the crowd.
	At the moment, responsible sports organisations which are trying not to have a financial burden imposed on them are properly training their staff and maintaining public safety—but they cannot be expected to continue in contravention of a law that was not intended to cover them. So, while supporting everything that has been said, perhaps I may make a special plea to the Minister to assure me that golfing competitions will likewise be covered by any agreement that may be achieved as a result of the ongoing negotiations.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, who, as we all know, has served the world of sport with great distinction, as have the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Addington. I shall try to be as helpful as I possibly can.
	This issue has followed me around for the past five or six years and, like everyone else, I shall be delighted if we can finally put it to bed and find a resolution to some of the difficulties that have arisen as a product of the unintended consequences of legislation which I thought at the time was extremely useful—although I was warned by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that one should be very careful in legislating that one does not create more of a problem than one is solving. This situation reminds me of that occasion. His words have turned out to be rather wiser than I thought at the time, although I always listen very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has to say.
	I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part in discussions outside of your Lordships' House because they have been very helpful indeed. No one is seeking to make a cheap, low-blow political point. I know that everyone is trying to be helpful and I am grateful to all those involved for working in a very constructive way. I want to restate that I am equally committed to working with the representatives of the organisations which have raised this issue in the way they have to find an agreeable way forward.
	To recap, noble Lords will recall from the Second Reading debate of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 that a measure was introduced to protect the public by reducing criminality and raising standards within the security industry, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, rightly made reference. There was a concern at that point about the activities of security staff on premises licensed to sell alcohol. Coming from Brighton, where we have a great many clubs, I had been frequently pressed over the preceding 20-odd years to get some effective government action because of some particular incidents of concern. This was a national issue.
	There is a need to protect the public, but that need has to be balanced against the need to avoid over-regulation in the industry. It is important that both effective and appropriate security measures are in place whenever they are needed and that the legislation is effective where it adds value. There have been some differences of opinion on whether or not the 2001 Act was intended to cover sports stewards.
	When I took the Private Security Industry Bill through the House, I said that it would not cover in-house football stewards and would cover those provided under contract. I also said I thought it was appropriate that one-off events such as pop concerts should be covered. It was also clear that in-house staff needed to be licensed when they were working on licensed premises. That latter point brings in security staff at sports grounds, which include licensed premises, and is the point, in essence, of the amendment.
	I want to move on from history and focus on where we are and where we want to end up. Not everyone who works as a sports or events steward needs to be licensed—far from it. Those who do not need to be licensed include volunteers, ticket collectors and all safety stewards who do not undertake any guarding responsibilities. Broadly speaking, in-house security staff do not need to be licensed unless they work in licensed premises or as wheel-clampers, or also provide security services under contract to someone else. Only those who undertake security activities or hold certain responsibilities within the company need licensing. At sports events where the risk of disorder or other relevant crime is low, I expect that there would be need for few security staff, with the great majority being safety stewards. Some events might not need any, but where they do, there is much to be said for common standards.
	The licensing of sports and events staff has, I readily acknowledge, been a contentious issue. Some of those from the sports and events industry who are directly involved have made clear their views that their stewards should not be required to be licensed. However, other groups have made equally clear their views that all people undertaking licensable activity should be licensed, and that to remove sports and events stewards from the remit of the Act would not be justifiable.
	For that reason, the Home Office has—conveniently, in a sense—recently issued a consultation document on how the Private Security Industry Act 2001 is applied to security staff at sports and other events. The deadline for responses, as has been astutely observed, is 16 June. The amendment goes to the heart of that consultation paper, and accepting it now would be premature. But it will, I hope, be helpful if I set out some considerations we will be likely to take into account once the consultation period is over.
	The Act allows for exclusion of premises from additional controls—that is, from the control that in licensed premises, in-house stewards must also be licensed. I am happy to confirm that exclusions can be achieved through secondary legislation. The Act does not set a framework within which applications for exclusion could be considered. There is an obvious need for such a framework to ensure clarity for those who may wish to apply and consistency in the Government's decision making. The establishment of such a framework might be one outcome of the consultation process, along with guidance on the sorts of evidence that would need to be provided by applicants. That evidence might include, for example, the benefits brought by a sports safety certificate. Other outcomes might include decisions on whether anything within the current licensing regime, as described in the Act or as operated in practice, needs clarifying or amending. Some stakeholders may have a variety of concerns, while others may find that greater understanding of what is required, or the provision of guidance or worked examples, will be sufficient to remove whatever concerns they have.
	I am hoping that we will get some valuable responses to the consultation paper, and today's debate suggests that we will. Other points will be raised that are not covered in the debate. The better the quality of the responses, the more likely we are to be able to reach speedy decisions that result in proper and professional security arrangements for the public, and regulation which bites where it needs to add value.
	My colleagues at the Home Office and the DCMS have had helpful meetings with my noble friend, and officials have had constructive discussions with a variety of sports bodies, including those covered by the amendment. These discussions will feed into the consultation process. The purpose behind the amendment is much better addressed in that context than in isolation, which would leave a lot of stakeholders' concerns unmet and make the licensing of security less coherent. However, I take the concerns behind it very seriously.
	Members of the Committee were pressing me for a timetable. I hope it will be possible for those responsible for ordering the business of this House to ensure that Report is not reached until after 16 June, when the consultation period closes. That would result in a debate on much clearer ground next time round. I hope that we will be able to look afresh at this at Report stage, taking carefully into account the comments that have been made. We will have the benefit of the consultation period behind us and the comments made by the organisations consulted to ensure that we achieve, in broad terms, the objective that noble Lords have raised in the debate.
	The noble Baroness asked a specific question about golf. I had not thought that golf stewarding would be a major issue when I came to this debate but, having watched a little golf myself, I can see that there could be problems. We will obviously consider the position of golf as we reconsider the other issues through the consultation process. The noble Baroness's comments were very helpful.
	This has been a very helpful and constructive debate. I am grateful for the spirit in which the amendment has been tabled. I hope that we can continue the process of consultation and that it is as constructive as it has been to date. I hope that we can reach an outcome that satisfies those in the various sports involved so that we can finally put this issue to rest and that the regulation of security at sports stadiums and venues is proportionate and effective and not as burdensome as some noble Lords have described or as has been made plain to us through representations. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will feel confident in withdrawing his amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Before the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, withdraws his amendment, as I anticipate he will, I should like to make two points. I welcome the Minister's comments about golf tournaments. As far as I am aware, there have never been such problems but there are substantial crowds at tournaments, often in confined spaces—I know that sounds odd, but the walkways are fairly confined. The stewards are fantastically well trained, which is why things go so well, but obviously responsible bodies do not want to contravene the law. The Open will be taking place towards the end of July, as it always does, and significant numbers of people will be involved.
	From the point of view of the Front Bench, I welcome the Minister's constructive comments. We all appreciate that the solution may be found in a context other than this amendment. We certainly give our support to the work that is being done towards that. It is unheard of for a Minister to indicate that Report will be delayed for the right reasons. Normally Ministers hide behind the format of saying, "It's all up to the usual channels; it's nothing to do with us, guv". I am glad that this is to do with this "guv"—the Minister—and I look forward to productive negotiations.

Lord Pendry: I listened carefully to my noble friend's response. I understand, as I am sure my colleagues do, that he cannot pre-judge what will emerge from the consultation, but I would be amazed if, at the conclusion of that exercise, he was not convinced of the logic that lies behind this amendment. If that is not the case, then we can return to this issue at Report. I assure my noble friend that we will be looking very carefully at what emerges from the consultation. I thank him for his thoughtful approach and those who have contributed to the debate. In anticipation of a successful conclusion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Offence of persistently selling alcohol to children]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 107:
	Page 21, line 11, at end insert—
	"( ) In section 197 of that Act (regulations and orders)—
	(a) in subsection (3), after paragraph (c) insert—
	"(ca) an order under section 147A(9) (increase of maximum fine for offence of persistently selling alcohol to children) to which subsection (4A) applies;";
	(b) in subsection (4), after "(c)," insert "(ca),";
	(c) after subsection (4) insert—
	"(4A) This subsection applies to an order under section 147A(9) if it appears to the Secretary of State that the power to make the order is being exercised for purposes that are not confined to the increase of the maximum fine to take account of changes in the value of money.""

Lord Bassam of Brighton: In moving this amendment I will speak also to Amendment No. 108. Amendment No. 107 would insert the order-making power set out in new Section 147A(9) into the list which currently exists in Section 197(3) of the Licensing Act 2003. This is a list of the order-making and regulation-making powers in the 2003 Act that require approval under the affirmative resolution procedure. In other words, any order seeking to increase the maximum fine of £10,000 on conviction for the offence of persistently selling alcohol to children would require the explicit approval of both Houses of Parliament.
	However, the insertion is limited by the application of new Section 197(4A) so that an order would not require affirmative approval by each House if any increase related only to inflation. I think this is simply sensible. It would be wrong to trouble the House with a matter as routine as solely inflationary increases. The House would rightly be concerned if any increase related to matters of policy and both Houses would need to give their explicit consent if that were the case.
	We are proposing this change in accordance with the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The committee was of the opinion that such a power should be exercised only with the explicit approval of the House on each occasion. We are happy to accept the committee's recommendation, subject to the limitation that I have mentioned. We are grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its advice and I am sure that the Committee would want to support it by accepting this amendment.
	Amendment No. 108 would insert into Clause 20 a requirement for the Secretary of State to keep under review the effectiveness of the measures in new Sections 147A and 147B and issue an annual report including numbers of convictions, numbers of court orders on convictions suspending premises licences and the Secretary of State's opinion as to the effectiveness of the measures in reducing sales of alcohol to children.
	I know that my noble friend has not already spoken to his amendment, but, before he does—

Lord Borrie: I find it a rather odd procedure. The Minister and I are not responsible for the bracketing together of these two amendments, but it is odd that he should reply before I have said anything on the subject.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: If I may help the Committee, I agree that the way this has worked out is strange. I am happy to stop there, having moved my amendment, and will listen with great care to what the noble Lord has to say. I have some nice things to say about his amendment even though I cannot, ultimately, endorse it. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: I speak in lieu of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe who is not able to be here. I added my name to the amendment because, at Second Reading, a number of noble Lords seemed anxious to ensure that any powers adopted in the Bill would be enforced. The powers that we are talking about here are important ones concerned with persistently selling alcohol to those under 18. Some noble Lords were concerned that many existing laws are not enforced and some were especially concerned that little action was taken against those who persistently sell alcohol to children—although in fairness to the Government and to the police more attempts have been made recently to stop this, particularly with the supermarkets.
	The amendment would keep the focus on pursuing those who persistently sell alcohol to under-age drinkers by requiring the Secretary of State to produce a report on an annual basis on the lines set out in this amendment so that he, us and everybody can test whether these forms of enforcement are working.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I can understand the confusion since the noble Lord was speaking to rather than moving the particular amendment. I have to be facetious and start by saying how much I welcome the fact that one of the Minister's own noble friends has sought fit to bring forward an annual report amendment, which is usually the function of the Opposition. I note that the Minister has already given notice that he will resist his noble friend.
	In a less facetious mode, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was absolutely right to reflect the concern expressed by several noble Lords at Second Reading about those traders who persistently sell alcohol to children. We all know that it is often difficult for traders to determine the age of a customer, particularly if my local area is anything to go by. One notices that young people gather around and nominate one person who happens to be just over 18 to go and buy the booze. They then bring it out and drink it outside, so they get round it that way.
	Throughout the debates on the Bill we have worried whether the legislation that the Government have brought forward would have any impact. Are there better ways of achieving what they have set out to achieve than these new and sometimes bureaucratic measures? On that basis, this is a helpful amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Borrie.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I said earlier, we entirely respect the spirit behind the amendment because, like all noble Lords, we regard the issue of the protection of children from harm as one of the highest priority.
	However, we would want to reflect on what the amendment fails to recognise, which is that new Sections 147A and 147B add to a raft of measures that the Government have already established and which aim to reduce sales of alcohol to children. As such, the enforcement of these new provisions could not sensibly be assessed in isolation from the other measures. I will quickly spell out what those measures are.
	The Licensing Act 2003 came fully into force on 24 November last year. Since then, the law on such sales has changed. For the first time, sales of alcohol to children under 18 anywhere—not just on licensed premises—were made unlawful. For the first time, sales made in private clubs and on pleasure boats became unlawful. Penalties for offences of selling to children have been toughened with fines increased from a maximum of £1,000 to £5,000. Personal licences may now be declared forfeit by the court on conviction for the first offence and not only after a second conviction as it used to be.
	For the first time, children under 16 may not be present anywhere on premises which are used primarily or exclusively for sales of alcohol for consumption there unless accompanied by an adult. Premises licences and club premises certificates may be reviewed by the local licensing authority at the request of the police or trading standards officers where evidence of persistent illegality exists. That can lead to revocation and suspension of the licence. Just yesterday, I was talking to a licensee who happens to be an old friend of mine. He said that he thought we had valuably tightened up and strengthened legislation and licensees are now taking it much more seriously than they did before. That is an important element of this.
	In 2004, to promote easier enforcement, the Government also expanded the use of fixed penalty notices for offences relating to sales of alcohol to children. We have also restricted the defence of due diligence so that it is more difficult to evade conviction for selling to children unless proper proof of age has been requested and seen.
	The alcohol harm reduction strategy has also prompted the introduction of a new standards and principles document, which was launched by the alcohol retail industry last year. This presses all retailers to adopt stricter challenges for young people to produce proof of age when attempting to buy alcohol. Schemes include "No ID, No Sale", "Challenge 21" and the PASS accreditation scheme for proof of age cards.
	Clause 21, which we shall discuss shortly, also introduces the concept of closure notices which have effect when the offences of persistently selling alcohol to children are dictated. The Committee will perhaps appreciate that new Sections 147A and 147B must be seen in this wider context. The new sections contribute to our attempts to combat unlawful sales to children, but they would not be isolated measures. It would therefore be difficult to unpick the impact of these sections on levels of unlawful sales, as it would be difficult to assess the other elements individually.
	We are adding to this already significant list of measures. First, the Alcohol Misuse Enforcement Campaign last summer revealed that, in almost 50 per cent of test purchasing operations against premises thought to be selling alcohol to children, sales to a child took place. This included not just small shops and pubs but major supermarket chains. The campaign conducted between last November and the new year showed a marked improvement, with successful test purchasing operations falling below 20 per cent. However, that remains a wholly unacceptable level of illegal trading and it cannot be tolerated.
	I think that the noble Lord's main concern is that we should review the impact of these measures. I certainly agree with the sense of that, and it is exactly what we shall do. We are already committed to monitoring and evaluating the impact of the Licensing Act 2003, of which the new sections will form a part, but those reviews must look across the board and not at isolated elements of the package. The Department of Health annually produces statistics that show the number of children aged 11 to 15 who are consuming alcohol, how much they are consuming and where they are obtaining that alcohol. The Home Office produces regular and up-to-date statistics showing the number of convictions for selling alcohol to children and the number of fixed penalty notices issued.
	The amendment is worth while in stimulating a debate, but it proposes a narrower assessment of the overall drive to curb underage sales. I give the assurance that we are watching this issue carefully and reviewing it as part of our evaluation process. I do not think that an annual report on the issue would be of benefit, and the noble Baroness would not expect me to say anything else, although some annual reports are of value. Frequently, we need a timeframe within which to look at how legislation operates, but on this occasion it would be inappropriate and too narrow in its remit. Having said all that, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment that was originally tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe.

Lord Borrie: I am most grateful to the Minister for setting out at some length additional laws that have come into operation and for explaining his attitude to the amendment. I was a little confused about whether his main argument was that the amendment was unnecessary or that it was too narrow because it dealt only with the matter of persistently selling alcohol to children. My noble friend Lord Brooke and I will look at Hansard and see whether there is anything further that we ought to do, but I am most grateful to the Minister for his explanation.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
	Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 21 [Closure notices for persistently selling alcohol to children]:

Lord Thomas of Gresford: moved Amendment No. 108A:
	Page 22, leave out lines 16 to 18.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: On many occasions, I look at government amendments and think to myself, "What on earth are they going on about?" When I look at Amendment No. 108A, I wonder "What on earth am I going on about?" I apologise to your Lordships because the amendment is defective as it is set down; if the Minister and those advising him could not grasp its purpose, that is because the second part of the amendment, which would have replaced the words on lines 16 to 18 on page 22, was not set down as well—I only noticed that this evening.
	The purpose of seeking to amend the closure notices provision is to change the way in which the matter is processed. The idea of the closure notice is that it is a sort of plea bargain before any proceedings are brought; a prohibition notice is a proposal to have a period not exceeding 48 hours during which a premises should be prohibited from selling alcohol, with any previous offences subsumed by the person concerned accepting the prohibition. That is a very interesting device, and it will be very interesting to see whether it works. But the relevant officers who issue the notices are defined as either,
	"a police officer of the rank of superintendent or . . . an inspector of weights and measures appointed under section 72(1) of the Weights and Measures Act 1985",
	sometimes known as a trading standards officer.
	The objection made to that by the Local Government Association is that pinning the power to the trading standards officer is a considerable limitation, for a number of reasons. First, local authorities have a problem in recruiting and retaining trading standards officers. Secondly, trading standards officers are employed only by unitary and upper-tier authorities, so the 238 district councils will not be able to contribute. When district councils, which have a great knowledge of the locality, feel that a closure notice might be a very good device to use in respect of a particular premises, they will not be able to act save through the police.
	The issue that I am raising, although I know it has been done in a defective way in the amendment, is to allow the definition of the relevant officer to be expanded from the trading standards officer to a person who is designated as the appropriate local authority officer by a local authority. In other words, a local authority would be able to say, whether or not it has a trading standards officer, that X is the person to consider the issue of closure notices.
	If that takes the Minister by surprise, I shall not be surprised myself. It may be a matter that I should discuss a little more fully on Report. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord is, as ever, forthright and honest in his approach to these matters. I would not say that he had entirely taken me by surprise, but what I would have intended to say does not really address the range of issues that he wants to address. He seems most keen to address the issue of district level authorities and whether they should be involved in a particular way, but I do not want to address that issue this evening. We shall give careful consideration to what the noble Lord has said, without giving any commitment to accepting necessarily what he proposes. We shall certainly look at what he has said in the Official Report and see whether it makes sense in relation to what we are attempting to achieve through the legislation. If he withdraws his amendment on those terms, I shall take it outside the Chamber to see what we can do with the issue at the heart of the amendment, as he intended it to read.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am most grateful to the Minister for his response and for his generous promise to consider what I said. No doubt we can return to the matter at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 21 agreed to.
	Clause 22 [Directions to individuals who represent a risk of disorder]:

Lord Thomas of Gresford: moved Amendment No. 109:
	Page 24, line 36, leave out "is likely" and insert "will"

Lord Thomas of Gresford: In the immortal words of President Reagan, here you go again. This is the clause that introduces directions to individuals who represent a risk of disorder. Just like ASBOs, it is an administrative device, a breach of which leads to the commission of a criminal offence. In this case the proposed direction is to be administered simply by a constable in uniform. He is entitled under Clause 22 to give a direction to an individual requiring him to leave the locality and not to return to it,
	"for such period (not exceeding a period of 48 hours) from the giving of the direction as the constable may specify".
	If he comes back, he commits an offence.
	When you have a criminal offence that is formulated in this way, it is necessary to look at the power of the police officer to give the direction. What is the test? It is set out in subsection (2):
	"that the presence of the individual in that locality is likely . . . to cause or to contribute to the occurrence of alcohol-related crime or disorder in that locality".
	I pause there. The clause does not mean to say that there has been alcohol-related disorder, nor that the individual to whom the direction is given has been or is likely to be responsible for the occurrence of such disorder. If his presence contributes to it, although he may have done nothing himself—if he is with a crowd of people celebrating a stag night, for example—the constable may give him this direction to remove himself from the area and not come back, and threaten him with a criminal charge if he disobeys.
	So far as I can see, there is absolutely no way anyone can challenge the giving of that direction. A person who appears in a magistrates' court—because this is a summary conviction matter under Clause 6—is not entitled under this clause to say, "I wasn't contributing to alcohol-related crime or disorder, nor was I likely to". He is not allowed to challenge at any stage the giving of the direction by the constable. We cannot start talking about judicial review of a constable's decision taken in the street. The measure gives a huge discretion to a police officer to clear the streets in any way he desires.
	My first amendment replaces the words "is likely" with something a little more positive: the clause would say that the presence of the individual in that locality "will" cause or contribute to the occurrence of alcohol-related crime or disorder. In other words, the police officer has to be satisfied with a bit more than a probability; he has to be satisfied with an actuality that this crime or disorder is likely to happen. To my mind, that is the very minimum.
	Of course I oppose the whole of Clause 22 as just another way of adding a further criminal offence. It almost certainly breaches the European Convention on Human Rights. If the convention is to stay in this country for more than a month or two—despite the threats of the Prime Minister and others—and the convention rights mean anything, notably Article 11 and Article 2 of Protocol 4 protecting freedom of movement, the whole of Clause 22 is inimical to it. This is a matter of considerable principle. Awaiting the Minister's reply, I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The overall effects of Amendments Nos. 109 to 113 would be to recast the direction-making power so a direction to leave could only be given if an individual "will" contribute to alcohol-related crime or disorder. In effect, the crime or disorder would have to be imminent before a direction could be given.
	I give an example of where a direction to leave might be appropriate. I am sure that we have all seen factual television programmes on alcohol-related crime, or perhaps been unfortunate enough when out late at night to witness the sort of problems on our streets that this measure attempts to deal with. In some situations, it simply starts where an individual or individuals in a group in a public place start to use threatening language and abusive behaviour against each other. Noble Lords will be aware of the form of behaviour that tends to be exhibited, and of the risk that such behaviour can contribute to crime and disorder. While it may be the case that no criminal activity has necessarily taken place between the individuals or groups, the likelihood is that this behaviour will cause or contribute to the occurrence or continuance of alcohol-related crime or disorder.
	That is a clear example of where a direction to leave for the individual or individuals may be necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of any crime or disorder that might develop. The aim of a direction to leave is therefore to minimise the likelihood of alcohol-related crime and disorder arising or taking place. We have already included an explicit necessity test so that a direction to leave should be given only if it is necessary to prevent crime and disorder. The power to give a direction to leave is therefore about prevention and early intervention to help to prevent more serious problems from arising as the situation unfolds.
	The direction will enable the police to deal immediately with a situation rather than have to apply to the court to sanction them to give a direction, which would cause unnecessary delay and might mean that the situation developed in a way that was unfortunate and damaging, perhaps leading to violence and disorder in the streets. I am sure that noble Lords will know from the feedback from the alcohol misuse enforcement campaigns that early intervention can help to reduce the likelihood of alcohol-related crime and disorder taking place.
	The direction to leave must be given in writing by the police and may require the individual to leave the locality either immediately or by such time as the police may specify. We have set out provisions in the Bill to ensure that such directions may not be given where they would prevent an individual from accessing places where there is a genuine need for that individual to be. A direction to leave can also be withdrawn or varied by any constable.
	The amendment would not enable this power to be used effectively, as it would in effect end the early intervention that a direction to leave would give rise to. The noble Lord said that there was no right of appeal against a direction to leave. It is right that there is no route of appeal, but if someone is prosecuted as a result of returning to a locality having been directed to leave it and not return within a particular period, that individual will have the opportunity in his defence to challenge whether the direction was properly made. As I have explained, a direction can be varied or withdrawn by any constable. I suppose that it would be possible for a judicial review of the proceedings to be mounted, but what we are trying to do with directions to leave is to provide the police with a practical tool that ensures that effective action can be taken on the streets to nip in the bud and close down any potential for disorder related to alcohol.
	I heard what the noble Lord had to say on the issue. I plainly disagree with the thrust of his amendment, which we have to reject. If it were to be passed, it would seriously hamper the effectiveness of a piece of legislation that we believe has practical value and merit.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am profoundly disappointed by his response. There are, of course, powers under the Public Order Act for police officers to intervene if they feel that a breach of the peace is likely to happen. They can arrest a person for conduct that is likely to cause a breach of the peace and take him before the magistrates' court. Under the Bill, instead of arresting the person, the policeman gives him a piece of paper and arrests him only if he comes back into the area. The Minister said that there is a power in the magistrates' court to challenge the giving of the piece of paper. However, nothing in the Bill says that. I do not see how you can read it in, unless there is some profound legal argument about the standing of the police constable or something of that nature. The offence is failing to obey a direction given to the individual by the policeman. If the person fails to do that, that is it. It is a matter of going for judicial review if the person feels aggrieved on the ground that he has done nothing.
	Here we have another example of authoritarian legislation limiting the rights of the citizen and enabling the police to push people around and to move them on. We do not accept that. For the moment I shall withdraw the amendment, but I shall come back to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 110 to 114 not moved.]
	Clause 22 agreed to.

Lord Borrie: moved Amendment No. 115:
	After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
	"ARREST REFERRAL SCHEMES
	(1) An arrest referral scheme is a partnership between a police force, an alcohol treatment service, and any of the following that lie within the geographical boundaries of that police force—
	(a) a health authority established under section 8 of the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49) (Health Authorities and Strategic Health Authorities);
	(b) a special health authority established under section 11 of that Act (Special Health Authorities);
	(c) a primary care trust established under section 16A of that Act (exercise of functions by Primary Care Trusts); or
	(d) a National Health Service trust established under section 5 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (c. 19) (NHS Trusts),
	that exists with the objective of issuing alcohol treatment referrals.
	(2) An alcohol treatment referral is a referral of an individual to alcohol treatment by a police officer.
	(3) Such a referral shall be made by a police officer upon arrest of an individual if he was under the influence of alcohol either—
	(a) at the time he was arrested; or
	(b) at the time the alleged offence for which he was arrested took place.
	(4) At the time of arrest, a police officer shall make an assessment as to whether the individual—
	(a) is under the influence of alcohol; or
	(b) was under the influence of alcohol at the time the alleged offence took place,
	and this assessment shall be recorded in writing.
	(5) If a police officer assesses an individual to have been under the influence of alcohol under the conditions of subsection (3)(a) or (b), he may present the individual with an alcohol treatment referral, at the time the individual is—
	(a) charged with an offence; or
	(b) cautioned in respect of an offence.
	(6) An alcohol treatment referral shall involve the police officer issuing the individual with information regarding alcohol treatment, including the time and place that such treatment is available, and treatment will be made available to the individual if he is held on remand.
	(7) The arrest referral scheme will provide voluntary alcohol treatment for an individual referred to treatment through the scheme, and appropriate treatment will consist of sessions totalling no less than two hours during which—
	(a) his use of alcohol is assessed;
	(b) he develops an action-plan designed to reduce the likelihood of re-offending due to alcohol; and
	(c) he is referred for further alcohol treatment where appropriate.
	(8) If an individual has been charged with an offence and is awaiting trial, a copy of the action-plan produced by an individual according to subsection (7)(b) shall be submitted to the court.
	(9) The Secretary of State shall keep under review the effectiveness of measures under this section and shall issue an annual report to Parliament specifying—
	(a) the number of alcohol treatment referrals made under this section;
	(b) the number of individuals receiving alcohol treatment referrals who volunteer to attend treatment under the referral; and
	(c) the re-offending rates of those individuals who volunteer to attend treatment under an alcohol treatment referral."

Lord Borrie: I sympathise with the negative feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about Clause 22. The purpose of my amendment is to give a positive element to that clause.
	In Committee on 26 April many of your Lordships welcomed government amendments that will offer some form of training or treatment for individuals who are subject to drinking banning orders. Your Lordships felt that it was a wise move to offer treatment—a wise move in the right direction. This probing amendment attempts to take the Government further in the same direction.
	At Second Reading on 29 March my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe referred to an alcohol referral scheme piloted in Dudley in the West Midlands between the metropolitan borough of Dudley and the Dudley Community Safety Partnership, with the support of the Dudley health authority, the West Midlands police and the Aquarius alcohol and drugs service. The aim of that scheme, which exists at the moment, is to reduce alcohol-related reoffending. In brief, it sets out a procedure by which individuals who commit alcohol-related offences are offered voluntary treatment or awareness-raising of their own problems. That can lead to further treatment, which should help the offender to recover from alcohol addiction and related problems.
	The amendment sets out the process in full. It appears to be working well in Dudley. I would like the Government to consider whether that experiment in that part of the country provides a model which has merits and which could be tried out over a wider area. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I support this probing amendment. It suggests a very practical way of assisting people not to reoffend. As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, on the first day of Committee, we welcomed new government clauses which tried to encapsulate recommendations made in another place by my honourable friend Humfrey Malins. Welcome though they were, the scope of those attempts to persuade people to change their behaviour so that they would not reoffend as a result of their alcohol use or abuse had to be limited. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, is trying to widen the availability of such help. The experience in Dudley shows that it is a very practical procedure that has good results. I hope that the Minister will give a positive response to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: We on the Liberal Democrat Benches also welcome the amendment. The proposed new clause is a very positive move. It suggests that if a police officer makes an alcohol treatment referral, he is giving someone information regarding alcohol treatment, giving him an appointment and telling him that treatment is available. It is a voluntary scheme. The measure would move the whole thing on in a very positive way. We support this amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I congratulate the noble Lord on tabling the amendment. We support it in general terms. There is a profound need to address the underlying problem of alcohol misuse, as many lobbies in this policy field, in particular Alcohol Concern, have rightly argued. It is an issue which the Government take very seriously.
	As we said when the Bill was introduced, it needs to be seen as part of our package of health and education measures to try to change cultural attitudes towards excessive drinking. Time will be needed to measure the success of that approach. As has been said, the Government, the Department of Health and industry representatives are convening specifically to address labelling and the sensible drinking message. The Home Office is also involved in alcohol referral schemes in a number of ways, both voluntary referral schemes and the more stringent approach developed as part of the conditional caution. Under the conditional caution approach, where someone has admitted an offence at the lower end of the scale and agrees to address their offending, the prosecutor can refer the offender to undertake rehabilitative or reparative action, for example attending alcohol counselling as a formal condition in alcohol-related offences. The offender can be prosecuted for the original offence if he or she accepts the condition but then fails to comply.
	Two conditional caution alcohol referral schemes are being trialled in Lancashire and the West Midlands. The noble Lord referred to the Dudley scheme. As we roll out conditional cautions across England and Wales, we intend to work with providers to expand the opportunities for such referrals as well as working with them to expand the existing voluntary schemes where they are found to be effective. For example, my honourable friend Paul Goggins, formerly the Minister with responsibility for alcohol matters in the Home Office, met representatives of the Aquarius scheme in Dudley, and officials are exploring what can be learnt from those approaches, with a view to increasing the opportunities for such referrals. That is also why we are introducing new clauses in this Bill to help individuals who are subject to drinking banning orders take a course to address their alcohol misuse and behaviour. We discussed that at an earlier stage.
	We are keen to take the opportunity in the criminal justice system to identify those whose offending is linked to alcohol misuse and to take steps to help them. However, we need to be sure that we are using public funds wisely. Not every offender who does something stupid while drunk will need alcohol counselling, and we need to test how effective the voluntary referral schemes are, and for which offenders and in which circumstances they should be applied. I am not convinced that we need to make alcohol referral schemes statutory as the amendment describes before such analysis. However, I should add that we gave an undertaking to review our alcohol reduction strategy in 2007 and we will continue to consider opportunities for alcohol referral as we develop that strategy.
	We want this matter to be evidence-based; we recognise the value of the work that has been conducted in the West Midlands and in Lancashire. We have seen the product of that work; there have been definite improvements in the recidivism level for those who have gone through the referral scheme and we are signed up to the fact that the scheme has great merit. We want to give it further time. We can return to it later, and there are measures in the Bill that will assist those who are subject to drinking banning orders to find their way on to appropriate courses to address their alcohol misuse and behavioural problems, to turn away from that and adopt a more sensible approach to drinking.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the subject. It has given me the opportunity to set out our approach on these matters, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Borrie: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for their support. I am moderately grateful to the Minister for his encouraging words, and at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 116:
	Before Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
	"OLYMPIC TARGET PISTOLS
	After section 7 (firearms of historic interest) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 (c. 5) insert—
	"7A OLYMPIC TARGET PISTOLS
	(1) The authority of the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers (by virtue of provision made under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998) is not required by virtue of subsection (1)(aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer, an authorised pistol if he is authorised by a firearms certificate to have the pistol in his possession, or to purchase or acquire it, subject to the following conditions—
	(a) that it is only for use in connection with training for and competing in the Olympic sport of target pistol shooting,
	(b) that it is only for use at regional shooting clubs designated by the Secretary of State as a place where such pistols can be used,
	(c) that it is stored at such designated sites and can only be removed subject to the authorisation of the Secretary of State.
	(2) For the purposes of this section an authorised pistol is a pistol whose specifications are determined by order made by statutory instrument by the Secretary of State.
	(3) In determining such specifications, the Secretary of State must consult the International Shooting Sports Federation.
	(4) This section shall not come into force before 1st January 2010.""

Lord Glentoran: With this amendment, I am once again wearing a sportsman's hat—not as part of the Home Office team. It is time to reassess the ban on the possession and use of sport target-shooting pistols in this country. It is 10 years since legislation was introduced that resulted in the ban on target pistols. That was in the aftermath of the terrible events at Dunblane, which shocked the nation and led, perfectly understandably, to calls for a ban on handguns. I do not wish to call into question the intention of the Government at that time to ensure that such a tragedy was never repeated. But that was 10 years ago and, in hindsight, the ban went a step too far.
	Two Acts dealing with firearms legislation received Royal Assent in 1997. The first, introduced by the Conservative government, banned larger calibres, and the second, under the new Labour Government, completed the process by banning smaller calibres, including .22 pistols. The combined effect of that legislation was practically to destroy the sport of target pistol shooting in this country. I have drawn attention to the fact that the legislation was passed by both Labour and Conservative governments because I want at the outset to acknowledge that this is not an exercise in apportioning blame for the 1997 ban. This issue affects sportsmen and sportswomen in this country, and I have tabled the amendment entirely in their interests. This is not a party-political issue.
	The ban has had an entirely disproportionate effect on the ability of our pistol shooters to train for and compete in international events. Competitors have to travel abroad to train, rather than using their own pistols in the convenience of their own club ranges. That makes it effectively impossible for young aspiring sportsmen and sportswomen to train effectively and to fulfil their potential. As such, it is a self-imposed handicap on our medal-winning potential for the 2012 Olympics, to which your Lordships will know that I am very close.
	Allowing Great Britain to compete on an even footing with other nations is the strongest reason for this ban to be removed and for other arrangements to be made. Another reason is our ability to host the 2012 Olympics in a way that will bring credit to this country. Three of the 17 shooting disciplines were affected by the ban. I understand that some local arrangements were put in place during the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester to ensure that the three affected disciplines could still take place. But those arrangements have been described by shooting organisations as administratively cumbersome, expensive and even insulting to the competitors of the nations who took part in the games—our guests. When it comes to hosting the 2012 Olympics, surely we can find a way to do better.
	I understand that the Great Britain Target Shooting Federation and other interested parties have been discussing this issue with the Home Office. I have also discussed this matter with Ministers and I thank them for their time and our sensible and constructive talks. I also take heart from the Minister for Sport's comments in another place in response to calls to remove these restrictions. He stated:
	"The strong representations that have been made are justified".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/4/06; col. 342.]
	He added that the Home Secretary was considering whether he could come to some arrangement to give the three disciplines practice facilities in this country and that he would report back when he had made his decision. I appreciate that there is now a new incumbent in the Home Office, but perhaps the Minister could today indicate the proposed arrangement and when it will be formally announced.
	UK Sport gives £4.8 million a year to shooting. Is it not right that that level of investment should be supported by allowing our competitors to train and compete effectively in their home country? Pistol shooting has a long history; indeed, it was one of the first Olympic events. It is also a sport in which Great Britain has, despite the odds, consistently excelled. This House should need no reminder of the magnificent achievement in Melbourne of Mick Gault, who by winning four medals claimed his 15th Commonwealth Games medal. He is currently Great Britain's most prolific medal winner in the Commonwealth Games, having overtaken Karen Pickering's record of 13 medals.
	If we want others to follow in his footsteps, and if we wish to reach the top four of the Olympic gold medal winners' table in 2012, we must do something now to remedy the situation. This amendment would allow enthusiasts to train and to use their pistols at designated sites and under close control. These pistols could be used only at designated shooting clubs and could not be transported away from such sites without express authorisation. We have tried to draft the amendment in a way that affords the Home Secretary an opportunity to consult the International Shooting Sport Federation to ensure that the specification of the pistols is correct and that any relaxation in the ban achieves no more than is necessary to allow our Olympic hopefuls to train for the games in the way that they deserve. I beg to move.

Lord Addington: I remember both the Acts to which the noble Lord referred going through this House—one just before and one just after the change of government. At that time, the initial decision taken by the then Conservative government was that single-shot pistols should not be included in the legislation because the threat that they posed to human life was far more limited than that of multi-shot, heavier, wider and basically man-killing, military-designed handguns of the type involved in the Dunblane tragedy. Later, it was decided to expand the type of guns covered by the legislation. I always felt that that was rather harsh on a group of people who did not have any record of causing deaths. When push comes to shove, a target pistol is a rather long-barrelled, unsightly and unmacho weapon. It is probably not the best thing with which to go out and damage people—indeed, a shotgun probably has a greater capacity in that department.
	I support the amendment for the simple reason that our international sportsmen, who have avoided controversy, have played within the law and have achieved results under remarkable circumstances—I agree with the noble Lord on that—deserve some support. Allowing these people, who are representing their country, to receive the support of the state in order to function is probably the minimum requirement, or something close to it.
	I do not think that the amendment, or something like it, would be a great threat to public order. I hope that the Government can at least give us some idea of what they propose to do about the Olympic Games, because this is a situation where, understandably, governments have slightly over-reacted. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Lord Monson: I strongly support the amendment. As the Committee is unusually thin at the moment, perhaps I may add that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, to whom I was speaking earlier this afternoon, also strongly supports it. Unfortunately, he has another engagement at the moment and is unable to be here to give his vocal support as he would like to have done.
	I can think of one reason and one reason only why the Government might be hesitant about accepting the amendment—fear of imagined public opinion and the opinion of a segment of the tabloid press. Those fears might have been justified, or partly justified, five or more years ago but I submit that that is no longer the case—in particular, with the Olympics looming ever closer. On the contrary, I suggest that the Government would be overwhelmingly applauded by the majority of the public and the media if they accepted this extremely modest amendment.

Earl Peel: I identify myself with my noble friend's amendment. I apologise to the Committee for intervening at a rather late stage in the Bill as I have not participated until now, but I was closely involved in the passage of the 1997 Act and its predecessor. I declare an interest as an ex-president of the Gun Trade Association. It appeared to me and indeed to many other noble Lords at the time that both the 1997 Act and its predecessor were an infringement on the liberties of law-abiding citizens who had enjoyed the sport unencumbered up until that point. Our justification for those comments has in fact proved to be correct, as it is pretty clear that gun-related crime has continued to rise since that time. The evidence demonstrated that legal guns played a very small part in any of the crimes committed at that time.
	We should also reflect—I say this with some reluctance but it is the truth—that if the police had utilised the powers that were available to them at that time, Hamilton would not have received a licence for such weapons. But, regrettably, political over-reaction from both parties—I entirely endorse the point that my noble friend made; this is not a party-political issue—took hold and the only people who really suffered were the law-abiding citizens and retailers whose sport and businesses were severely criticised. But that is in the past and I hope that lessons have been learnt.
	The amendment would, I believe, go some way to making amends for the great injustice that these two Acts have done towards those who wish to participate in target pistol shooting. As matters stand at the moment—this is another point raised by my noble friend—anyone within Great Britain who wishes to participate in such a sport must go abroad. I suggest that that is an absolute absurdity, and we now have an opportunity to make amends and address the problems. We are to be the hosts of the Olympic Games and the amendment gives us a chance to redress this difficulty. I really hope that the Government will look very carefully at my noble friend's amendment and come to some sensible agreement which will allow the shooters of this country to practise and participate in this country and, it is hoped, win medals in the way that they have done in the past and be a credit to Great Britain.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Some of us other than those who have spoken realised when the previous legislation went through under both governments that great damage would be done to this sport, for which there was great enthusiasm in Scotland. Weapons legislation is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act and consequently Clauses 23 to 37 of the Bill apply to Scotland, absolutely correctly, although knives are not a reserved matter and legislation on them is therefore devolved. Clauses concerning knives do not apply in Scotland.
	I want to ask a question of my noble friend, who moved this very important amendment. The way in which he has drafted the amendment indicates that he has discussed the matter with Scottish Ministers. I take it that he has; if he has not, and should the amendment be accepted, the Government would no doubt ensure that everyone was happy about it, but I imagine that they are. It is extremely important that something is done about this matter, particularly in relation to the Olympic Games. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to my noble friend's amendment. I know that it would cause great delight in Scotland if we could compete in the Olympics in this sport. There was a lot of enthusiasm for the sport in a number of clubs in my locality and people are still very keen on it, so I hope that the Government will be sympathetic.
	I want to ask my noble friend one other question. I notice that, if the amendment were accepted, the provision would not come into force until 1 January 2010. I presume that his intention is that the measure would then continue so that it would apply for future Olympic Games. It seems to me important that it should not come to an end just because the Olympics to which it refers are in this country, but I expect that that is the case. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic and that they will not turn down the amendment now, as that would be terrible.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My name has been added to this amendment, which I strongly support. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Glentoran for taking this matter forward and for doing so in such a measured and constructive way. As he said, he was not seeking to apportion blame for the results of the 1997 ban. I came to this House in 1996 and listened to the debates at that time. I was aware of the very strong feelings around the House about the impact of a ban on the very responsible sportspeople and users of firearms, particularly in rural areas. I know that there was also a determination around the House to ensure that no further atrocities could prevail. There was a very constructive discussion at that time and I know that that will continue.
	As my noble friend pointed out, the difficulty is that the legislation has had a disproportionate effect on the ability of our pistol shooters to compete in international events in the proper way and to fulfil their potential. It is to their credit that they have achieved as much as they have against a background of tremendously difficult circumstances. We thought it was right to consider this matter in the context of the United Kingdom hosting the 2012 Olympics.
	Perhaps I may respond to the questions very properly put by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. I confess immediately that at the initial stage I was responsible for trying to formulate an appropriate amendment. I say "appropriate" because this is a probing amendment and it is not one that we shall put to the test this evening. My noble friend asked about negotiations and consultation with Scottish Ministers. We sought advice from the Public Bill Office on the proper method of drafting this part of the amendment. It is our understanding that if the Government were prepared to take forward any measure, they would have to have discussions with Scottish Ministers. Whether it were an amendment to the Bill in this format or any other way in which they could bring forward a proper proposal to allow effective practice in this country, they would have to consult Scottish Ministers because, as my noble friend says, this is not a devolved matter. This was put in as a drafting matter and as signatories to the amendment we have not as yet carried out consultation with Scottish Ministers. However, I have had conversations with sports bodies that represent the interests of those from Scotland who compete and they support the amendment.
	My noble friend also quite properly raised the issue of why 2010 is the starting point. That date was put forward as a starting point for negotiations to try to give our competitors an opportunity to take part in the lead up to the Olympics in London. As there is no sunset clause, my noble friend is absolutely right to ask what will happen after the London Olympics. Our argument is that, by 2010, we will need to have in place a system that is robust enough so that it can persist after that, ensuring that our competitors can continue to compete effectively at the highest level. She is right to spot that there is no sunset clause, but we need to consider what system should be put in place.
	That brings me back to other points that have been made. I welcome the discussions that I understand have taken place between the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I do not underestimate the difficulty that there always is in trying to achieve cross-departmental agreement. Both departments may want to ensure that our competitors take part effectively in pistol shooting competitions, but they may approach that from different positions. We are trying to provide the soothing oil to the rather dry and gristy mill of government and we are trying to achieve a result that pleases everyone. As we are being so compliant today, one should not underestimate our determination to assist the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in coming to the right decision.
	I also welcome the words of the Minister, Mr Caborn. His responses in another place appeared to hold out the hope that there could be an agreement with the Home Office on a sensible way forward. This amendment kicks off that debate within the context of the Bill, giving an immediacy to finding a solution. Through this amendment, we hope that, before the Bill leaves this House, we can ensure that proposals are in place to enable our competitors to have an opportunity to achieve all that they deserve within that international competition.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank my noble friend for putting me right. Of course, it was not appropriate at this stage to consult Scottish Ministers about what is only a probing amendment. The important point is that Scottish sporting interests want it, so there is no need for either my noble friend or the Government to comment on my remarks about that.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for the way in which he has dealt with the amendment. As all speakers have acknowledged, almost with one voice, it is a very sensitive issue. Nearly all speakers have taken us back to the events of 1996 and the Firearms (Amendment) Act of 1997 which followed. The issue was quite properly raised at Second Reading by a number of noble Lords. They pointed to the considerable success that our shooters achieved at the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne. We confirmed then, as we have done on many previous occasions, that pistol shooting events can, of course, go ahead at the 2012 London Olympics without the need for changes to legislation. Instead, we would use the Home Secretary's powers under Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to authorise competitors and officials to possess competition pistols for the duration of the games and for special warm-up events.
	Those arrangements worked very well for the Manchester Commonwealth Games but, if there are any lessons to be learnt, we are happy to consider how we might fine tune what was done last time. My noble friend Lady Scotland made it clear that we would be discussing with colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements should be made to allow squads to practise in Great Britain in advance of the games, and this we are doing.
	I am happy to confirm all of this again today but I have to say that we are not persuaded that we need to change the legislation in the way in which the new clause before us proposes.

The Earl of Shrewsbury: I understand entirely what the Minister is saying, but these disciplines are so serious to those involved and they have to train very hard. One of the most important aspects of training for pistol shooting is to be able to possess these weapons at home or in a designated place where safety is paramount so that they are able to dry fire them. That has to happen years before they take part in an Olympic Games. The statistics and the facts are such that it is very seldom indeed that someone who tries Olympic shooting for the first time at the Olympics does any good at all. They do well a second time, but they need to have dry firing training as well as other types of training.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am well aware that the noble Earl is far more expert in these matters than I am. I am sure the point that he makes is a very proper one. Although I accept the points made by the noble Earl, I want to explain our position. As I have said, I am happy to confirm our approach, which has been set out before. At this point, we are not persuaded that we need a change to the legislation, as the new clause proposes.
	I entirely accept that there is a debate to be had about the arrangements for the London Olympics but, ultimately, this can be resolved using the Secretary of State's powers under Section 5, which are sufficiently wide and allow for conditions to be attached both generally and to ensure that public safety and peace are not endangered.
	The new clause before us does not address what would happen after the London games. The proposed starting date of 1 January 2010 was clearly selected with just the London Olympics and preparations for them in mind, but gives no indication as to when the special arrangements might end. Furthermore, far from being confined to those with a realistic chance of becoming Olympians, it would be open to any shooters to claim that they were training with this as their long-term aim.
	While I recognise that only a limited relaxation of the handgun ban is being proposed, I would be concerned that this might be seen as a weakening of our gun controls. The ramifications of a total ban were very carefully considered by your Lordships' House, although in a different atmosphere, at the time of the original ban and it was recognised then that it would effectively end competitive pistol target shooting in this country. However, it was also recognised that special arrangements could be made to allow pistol shooting events to go ahead if, as is now the case, the Olympic, Commonwealth or Paralympics Games were to take place in Great Britain. We should continue to pursue that course, in consultation with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the shooting organisations.
	A number of noble Lords have mentioned that these consultations are currently being conducted. There are also new Ministers in post. This is clearly a matter of some delicacy, on which there will need to be careful consultation and consideration. We have had considerable success with our firearms strategy over recent years. There was a reduction in the number of firearms offences in 2004–05 of 5 per cent, and a beneficial decrease of 15 per cent in the use of handguns. However, gun crime must be tackled, and we must all take it seriously. Clearly, the legislation was originally drafted with that in mind; there was a carefully constructed political consensus at the time.
	I pay tribute to those who have had success in the Commonwealth Games. I have the table of winners in the most recent competition, and it is indeed impressive. Those successes have been achieved under the current legislative framework. I hear and recognise what the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said.
	I hope that we can continue the all-party consensus. I have seen a recent press statement from the Conservative Opposition on the issue, which concerns me a little, but it contains a commitment to continuing an all-party consensus wherever possible on the limiting exemption for handguns. I hope that we can pursue the issue in that light. I cannot give a commitment that we will bring back an amendment like the one we have today; that would be quite wrong. All I can say is that we are committed to further consultations to find a way through what is, as all have recognised, a difficult issue.
	However, I am most grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has raised this matter, and to all speakers who have contributed from the opposition Benches for the constructive framework in which they have done so. Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment this evening, so that those discussions and consultations can continue.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and comparatively wide-ranging response—so much so that I will certainly need to read it carefully before going any further. I assure the Minister and the Government that, from where I am standing, I would like to continue discussions. I hope that they are not negotiations and that we are searching for a way through this sensitive issue. I am very aware, as we all are, of those sensitivities. I sincerely believe that, if the Government decide that it is right to do it, then we can.
	We should not just be thinking—I am not—about those who are going to compete in 2012. There may be those who did so well in Melbourne that that generation will still be at that level. However, we must think of the future of these sports in this nation. I shot competitively when I was in the Army, and know only too well how much training it takes in the many disciplines, including physical, which must be available if you are going to be a serious success at the top of your sport.
	I finish by thanking the Minister and his colleagues in government with whom I have been discussing this issue over the last four months for listening and for their consideration. I hope that we may continue and come up with a solution for Report stage. Whether I or the Government move another amendment on Report, we shall see, but the issue will certainly stay alive. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 23 [Using someone to mind a weapon]:

Lord Thomas of Gresford: moved Amendment No. 116A:
	Page 26, line 6, after "he" insert "intentionally"

Lord Thomas of Gresford: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 117A and 117B. We are moving to Part 2 and dangerous weapons. We on these Benches support the new offence of using someone to mind a weapon. There are many cases of which I am personally aware where weapons have been concealed in an attempt to evade the forces of law and order.
	All I am seeking to do with these amendments is to inquire what the mens rea of this offence is to be, which is why we seek to introduce the word "intentionally". I also criticise the words in subsection 2(b),
	"or be likely to involve or to lead to".
	Those are very vague words for a criminal offence punishable either by four years in the case of a knife or 10 years for a firearm. We seek to tighten up the offence by including the words,
	"or is intended by him to be used in the course of the commission of an offence".
	These are probing amendments, and I await the Minister's response.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 116A introduces a specific requirement for intent to be demonstrated in using another person to look after a weapon. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support, in general terms, for our approach on this. The amendment does not add to the offence as drafted, as the word "uses" requires the offender to intend the other person to act in a particular way. It is not possible to "use" someone unintentionally. There is therefore already a mental element of intention as a central part of the offence.
	Amendments Nos. 117A and 117B would make a successful prosecution of offenders who use other people to mind their weapons for them far more difficult. The clause requires that the minding of a weapon would facilitate its being available to the offender for "an unlawful purpose". In many cases, this could be simple possession of the weapon by the offender. Therefore, in any circumstances in which it would be unlawful for the offender to possess the weapon, it will also be an offence if he gives it to another person to mind.
	The amendments would have the effect that, in cases where the unlawful purpose is not the mere possession but the future use of the weapon, the offence would not be committed if possession of a weapon by the offender would be likely to involve or lead to an offence, but instead would be committed only if the weapon were specifically intended to be used in an offence. Given the difficulty of proving intent, this would dilute the effectiveness of a provision that has been generally welcomed by members of the community, who see and suffer the terrible effect that gun and knife crime has on their lives and communities and who believe that passing weapons to others in an attempt to avoid prosecution is commonplace. In our fight against violent crime, we need to cover a broad range of situations to make sure that those offenders who use dangerous weapons, and use other people to look after them, do not escape the full effect of justice.
	I welcome the noble Lord's general support, but his amendments would have a powerful undermining effect on a measure that is not just beneficial, but carries the broad support of many of the communities which have suffered the unpleasant impact of gun and knife crime.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Planning (Application to the Houses of Parliament) Order 2006

Baroness Andrews: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19 April be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the Planning (Application to the Houses of Parliament) Order 2006 which is before us today is a small, but nevertheless essential, part of the package of subordinate legislation that is necessary to bring Part 7 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 into force. Noble Lords will be aware that this order was agreed to by the other place on 9 May.
	The order is a technical provision which is required to regularise the position of Parliament once the planning Acts are applied to the Crown and, by extension, to Parliament. The planning Acts are the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—which I shall refer to as the "principal Act"—the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990.
	I am sure noble Lords will want to know that the order does not extend planning regulation in a way that interferes with the rights and privileges of either House. We are aiming for a smooth transition from the current non-statutory system to the statutory system. This order therefore places the Palace of Westminster within the system and avoids the state of limbo which would occur without it.
	Perhaps I should explain what happens at the moment. Currently, and until Part 7 of the 2004 Act is enacted, approval for development or listed building consent is applied for on a voluntary basis, following the non-statutory procedures set out in DoE circular 18/84 entitled Crown Land and Crown Development. The Crown, and Parliament, would submit a notice of proposed development, or NoPD, instead of a planning application or application for listed building consent. The NoPD is publicised in the same way as a normal application and is put on the planning register. The local planning authority has eight weeks to consider it. If they do not agree, and differences cannot be resolved by negotiation, the dispute is referred to the Secretary of State for determination. This may be done by written representations or by a non-statutory public inquiry, similar to a recovered appeal. The inspector reports to the Secretary of State and a decision letter is issued in the normal way.
	I am sure noble Lords will be glad to know that the Parliamentary Works Directorate maintains good relations with both Westminster City Council and English Heritage. That has allowed applications for projects such as Portcullis House and the security screen for the Gallery in the other place to progress smoothly under the circular 18/84 procedure.
	It might also be helpful if I remind the House of the background to Part 7 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is entitled "Crown Application of Planning Acts". When brought into force, it will end the Crown's immunity from the planning system by applying the planning Acts to the Crown. There is a long-standing policy to end the Crown's immunity where this is no longer necessary: for example, the NHS lost its immunity in 1991. The Crown includes government departments but also Her Majesty's private estates, the Crown Estate and the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall.
	There is a second compelling reason as a result of infraction proceedings taken by the European Commission against the United Kingdom. The UK has now received an adverse judgment from the European Court of Justice for failing to transpose the environmental impact assessment directive completely. Although the directive has been transposed through planning regulations, these do not apply to the Crown because of the Crown's immunity. So there is no transposition for Crown land. Hence the UK, in this respect, is in breach of its obligations and has had to legislate to remedy this.
	The main package of subordinate legislation required to bring Part 7 into force was laid before Parliament today and is due to come into force on 7 June. This consists of a commencement order and three other statutory instruments subject to the negative resolution procedure. These will apply existing planning subordinate legislation to the Crown with modifications where necessary. It will also amend the listed buildings and hazardous substances regulations, and provide rules covering the role of special advocates for planning cases with national security implications.
	The Planning (Application to the Houses of Parliament) Order and its companion Order in Council, which contains consequential amendments, are instruments which we need in order to accommodate the unique position of this wonderful building and its precincts within the statutory planning system and, in particular, to ensure that the planning Acts and subordinate legislation made under them apply to Parliament. This order and the companion Order in Council will not come into force until about 29 June, as it would not be proper to put the consequential order before the Privy Council until this planning order had completed its progress through Parliament. The next Privy Council meeting is on 7 June. This means that there will be a short gap between the main Crown provisions coming into force and Parliament catching up, but we do not expect this to cause any difficulties in practice.
	It might help noble Lords if I remind the House briefly why the Government are promoting this order. As I have said, the Crown's immunity from the planning system must end, both for general policy reasons and as a result of European Union infraction proceedings. The planning Acts will apply to Parliament as well as to the Crown and we need this order and the companion Order in Council to bring Parliament into the statutory system.
	In order for the Crown to be properly integrated into the statutory planning system, all categories of Crown land must be identified. Each category must have an "appropriate authority" that is able to interact with the local planning authority. Typically, this would be the government department owning or managing the land. "Crown land" is defined in the planning Acts as land in which there is a Crown interest or a Duchy interest. A "Crown interest" is defined to include an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or in right of her private estates, an interest belonging to a government department and such other interest as the Secretary of State specifies by order.
	The Palace of Westminster is therefore Crown land because it is land in which there is a Crown interest, in this case an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown. However, as I am sure noble Lords will know, in 1965 control of certain parts of the Palace passed from the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Queen's representative, to the Speaker, for the House of Commons' part of the building, and to the Lord Chancellor, for the Lords' part. The Lord Chamberlain retained responsibility for Her Majesty's Robing Room, the adjoining staircase and ante-room and the Royal Gallery, and retained responsibility for Westminster Hall and the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft jointly with the Speaker and Lord Chancellor.
	The parts for which the Lord Chamberlain retains responsibility, and for which he is the appropriate authority, are set out in Section 293(2)(f) and (g) of the principal Act, as inserted by paragraph 6(4) of Schedule 3 to the 2004 Act. Similar provisions have been made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Schedule 3 for the listed buildings Act and the hazardous substances Act respectively. I shall not mention these two Acts again to avoid over-complication. References to the "principal Act" therefore should be taken to refer to the equivalent provisions of the other two Acts.
	Following the passage of the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992, title to various buildings forming part of the parliamentary estate, but outside the Palace of Westminster, was transferred to the corporate officers. Notwithstanding that the Palace of Westminster as a whole is Crown land, the interests of the Houses of Parliament in the Palace are not Crown interests. To date, however, for the purposes of planning legislation the interests of the corporate officers have been treated as if they were Crown interests, and any development carried out by or on behalf of a corporate officer has been regarded as development carried out by or on behalf of the Crown. This is set out in the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies (Crown Immunities etc.) Order 1992 and brings us to the purpose of the order we are debating.
	Because of the unique position of Parliament, express legislative provision has been made in the 2004 Act to provide that the planning Acts apply in relation to the Houses of Parliament and their interests in the Palace of Westminster and other land. That is provided partly in Section 112 of the Act— which says that the planning Acts and the 2004 Act have effect despite any rule of law relating to Parliament or the law and practice of Parliament—and partly through the order we are debating. In order for the Houses of Parliament to avoid being left in legislative limbo once the planning Acts apply to the Crown, it is necessary to define Parliament's interests as Crown interests. This is the purpose of Article 2(2) of the order. Once an interest has been defined, it is necessary to designate an appropriate authority, and this is the purpose of Article 3. For the purposes of the planning Acts, the appropriate authority has the power to make planning applications, give permission for enforcement action and act generally as the point of contact with the local planning authority. The effect of the order, when taken with Part 7 of the 2004 Act, will be that the Houses of Parliament and the corporate officers will be subject to planning Acts in relation to any development or works that they wish to carry out.
	It might help the House if I clear up some potential technical queries at this stage. The significance of 23 March 1965 in Article 2(2) is that it is the date of a Statement on the management of the Houses of Parliament by the then Prime Minister, the late Harold Wilson—later a Member of this House—which transferred control of the Lords and the Commons to the respective Speakers of those Houses, to which I have already referred.
	I am sure that noble Lords will know that, in Article 3, the corporate officers are the Clerk of the Parliaments for the House of Lords and the Under Clerk of the Parliaments for the House of Commons. Those officers were designated by Sections 1 and 2 of the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992.
	Some noble Lords might be wondering why all this is not in the 2004 Act, when we were able to specify part of the Palace of Westminster. The principle that the planning Acts and the 2004 Act apply to Parliament was confirmed by Section 112 of the 2004 Act. The details, however, were left to secondary legislation, given the undoubted complexity of the ownership and management arrangements of this place. That is why we have provided the enabling powers for this order in paragraph (c) of the definition of "Crown interest" in Section 293(1) of the principal Act and equivalents.
	I hope that I have been able to explain adequately to the House why this order is needed and the context in which it is being made. It might also help to reassure the House that the order was prepared in consultation with the House authorities. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19 April be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Andrews.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for bringing this order to the House. It is probably one of the most fascinating that we have had for a very long time, and one of those about which I have least to say. It is of enormous interest and historical importance.
	The Minister says that in the past the House authorities have co-operated with Westminster City Council but that was on a voluntary basis. I would like the noble Baroness to clear up two points. First, will the relationship between this House and English Heritage become formal as well as informal—presumably, people will always ask English Heritage for its views—with the heritage aspect of planning applications?
	My second point relates to the position of the Minister for planning or, indeed, the Secretary of State. He or she has the right of appeal. If the House were in the extraordinary position of trying to do something of which Westminster City Council did not approve, the planning committee turned down the application, and the House appealed, as it would be entitled to do, would there not be a conflict of interest regarding that decision? It is a mini-conundrum, and I hope it will never happen, but it is not completely impossible.
	We debated the planning Act at length; this matter was left for secondary legislation. It has been extremely well described, and I cannot add anything more to what the Minister has said.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, we welcome not only this order but also the explanation given by the Minister. We would nearly ask her to repeat it, but I think we will have to wait to read it in Hansard. It is so complicated that it leaves a poor little man like me fairly confused until I can read it in black and white. We know that 17 May is a historic day because of this move. The order brings within the planning laws the position of the Parliamentary Estate, which until now has been uncertain and, as we have heard, unsatisfactory—it has been neither fish nor fowl. We should abide by these laws like everyone else has to do. It will be interesting to see the exact outcome. We welcome and support the order.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am very grateful for the warm welcome that noble Lords have given to the order. I am very pleased that they found the explanation so lucid. I am even more relieved that they have not asked me to explain some of the historic antecedents of the notion of Crown lands and Crown interests. I find it interesting that this building, with its Tudor roots, which continue in the Robing Room as opposed to the working part of the Palace, has over time served different purposes. Noble Lords are right to say that this is a historic day.
	This is a Grade 1 listed building; it could not be otherwise. Bringing it within the planning system proper, I presume, means, for example, that English Heritage is the statutory consultee. While it was in the voluntary regime, English Heritage would always have been consulted, but now the provisions require that. In fact, nothing about the process will change, for the reasons I have explained. The planning process in the voluntary system was virtually identical.
	On the conflict of interest in this unique situation—I think the noble Baroness is teasing me—I am sure there is none, although ostensibly one could view the Secretary of State as somehow having some sort of relationship with the building. But I am assured that that would not be so.
	When I read my own words and think more about what noble Lords have asked me, if I find that I am wrong in any of those respects, I will of course put the record right. In the mean time, I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006

Lord Rooker: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 April be approved.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to introduce a series of measures which will create a new framework for the private rented sector in Northern Ireland. The private rented sector plays a very important role in meeting the housing needs of a large number of people in Northern Ireland. It offers choice and represents a flexible and speedy option for those who, for whatever reasons, are not ready to buy their own home. And it provides an alternative for those living in areas where there is a high demand for social housing.
	The sector can be divided into two distinct parts: the uncontrolled part, which is subject to minimal government intervention, and the controlled part: that covered in the Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. This is complex and cumbersome. It has created a situation where tenants in properties subject to rent control have significant rights, whereas those in uncontrolled properties have only basic rights.
	However, the major problems of unfitness are in the controlled sector. That is largely due to the fact that rents are so low that the landlords have no incentive to improve or even repair their properties.
	As a determining factor in deciding whether a property should be subject to rent control is its status in 1978 rather than its current condition, the legislation makes no contribution to the department's objective of creating a viable private rented sector. The order, therefore, focuses on addressing the main problems in the sector and removes unnecessary complexity from the existing legislative framework. It introduces a new system of repair enforcement and rent control over private tenancies in Northern Ireland.
	Fitness of a tenancy will be the chief factor in determining whether rent control should apply. Where the tenancy is found to be unfit, rent control will be imposed. District councils will have powers to enforce the necessary remedial work to bring the property up to fitness standard. Repeat offences will ensure that landlords cannot evade their responsibilities.
	The order rationalises the existing complex system of regulation. Once an existing protected or statutory tenancy comes to an end, the property will no longer be subject to rent control, unless it fails to meet the fitness standards. I should make it absolutely clear that existing protected tenants will retain their security of tenure.
	The order contains provisions that will clarify landlord and tenant responsibilities. Private landlords will have to provide tenants with a statement of the terms of their tenancy, which will include details of who is responsible for repairs. Where no such written statement is provided, default terms will apply. Provisions in the orders are based on the recommendations of a multi-agency working group comprising representatives from all interests, including landlords and tenants. They have been through consultation with district councils, the Housing Executive and the voluntary and community sectors in Northern Ireland. The public consultation on policy and legislation has received widespread support.
	This is the first major initiative for this growing sector of the housing market in Northern Ireland for 28 years. It will provide the basis of a co-ordinated inter-agency approach to tackling disrepair in the sector, involving the district councils and the Housing Executive, which we believe will make real inroads into the unacceptably high levels of unfitness.
	Tenants, many of whom are elderly and vulnerable, will have the opportunity to live in better quality homes. Many will have greater security of tenure than they have at present. Landlords of good quality accommodation will be able to receive a fair return on their investment. Those who wish to improve the standards of their properties can, as at present, access grant aid through the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Landlords who fail to maintain their properties will find themselves subject to the full rigours of the law. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 April be approved.—(Lord Rooker.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining this rather difficult order so clearly. I do not pretend to be an expert on this, but I support the order.
	There is no doubt that this part of housing in Northern Ireland needs a shake-up. I have some briefing from the National Landlords Association and will mention some points that it has raised, which the noble Lord will no doubt have seen in his briefing. These are that the provisions of the order should have been more clearly linked to other issues such as licensing of houses in multiple occupation, and that there should be closer working with landlords' organisations in the payment of housing benefit. The NLA remains disappointed about some of the provisions. It states:
	"The requirement to provide a rent book for all tenancies is an unduly onerous one in the world of electronic payments".
	Perhaps we all agree with that. It continues:
	"The powers of Articles 64 and 65 of the Order allowing a district council to require the details of tenancy agreements and landlords have not been fully explained and greater clarification that these would not be used to interfere in the landlord-tenant relationship or to introduce landlord or tenancy registration by stealth needs to be given".
	I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, but it would be nice to have reassurance on that point.
	The order will sweep away the distinction between controlled and uncontrolled tenancies which, in my opinion, has to be a good thing. Overall, in principle, we support the order.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing the order. We were very pleased to see the widespread support for the proposals in the consultation process. We very much agree with the Minister that they were needed. I have just a few questions, echoing the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, concerning Article 5 and the practicality of insisting that the landlord provide the tenant with a rent book. Many people now pay their rent by standing order and do not have direct contact with their landlord regularly. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that.
	On Article 36, can the Minister tell me how a landlord who has failed to apply for a fitness certificate can be discovered? How do you find out where that landlord is? Some respondents to the consultation said that they would welcome rent control for properties built after 1956. Why was that date chosen? It seems rather arbitrary, so we should be very grateful if he could answer that.
	On Article 45, what does the Minister understand to be the change in circumstances of the dwelling house or tenancy issues to make a registered rent no longer appropriate? What would that change in circumstances be?
	How many unfit properties are there in Northern Ireland? It may not be possible for the Minister to tell me this evening—it may not be recorded anywhere—but it would be helpful to know how many properties we are talking about. Echoing some of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I appreciate that the Housing Executive has power to deal with the suitability and operation of houses in multiple occupation, but where does it sit in regard to this legislation?
	I have asked quite a number of questions, but we welcome the order and look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for outlining this order. It would be inappropriate of me not to offer a word of congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, who today became a grandmother and is now, therefore, available for the award of most glamorous grandmother of the year.
	We broadly support the order. I am especially pleased to hear about the grant aid for landlords. I just wonder whether extra resources will be made available to local councils—district councils—to help administer the order. I am very pleased that the Minister pointed out that this order is long overdue. It is 28 years since the matter was reformed, so it is with pleasure that I support the order.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness on the birth of her first grandchild, a boy—named Ashton, I believe. I think that the parents will be tickled pink that it will now be in Hansard. Congratulations all round.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for that, which has nothing to do with the order.

Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, but we are human beings as well as legislators. I am very grateful for the overall welcome to the order. I shall respond to the questions in no particular order. There are approximately 3,500 unfit properties in the private rented sector, which is about 5 per cent of rented properties. That is the scale of what we are dealing with.
	On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, he knows better than I do that the Housing Executive has a lot of functions other than the allocation of housing. A lot of the non-core functions will be transferred to district councils but the Housing Executive is a partner responsible for providing grant aid to landlords for unfit properties. It is already involved in that process; it is part of its functions. If my memory serves me correctly, that is one function that will, under the review of public administration, go to local councils.
	I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that there are no proposals to extend licensing and registration schemes to the private rented sector. I accept what has been said about electronic records but, to be honest, if I was paying rent, I would want a rent book—a bit of proof. Electronic payments are considered legal, and they provide a record, but the rent book is a statement of the rent payable and payments made. That is basically its function. It is also, of course, quite separate from the tenancy agreement.
	The date of 1956 is linked to the rent restrictions legislation. So there is a crossover to other legislation, which is why that date is used.
	The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about houses in multiple occupation was wholly reasonable in the circumstances; I remember asking it myself when I discussed the matter with officials a few days ago. The legislation governing the management of houses in multiple occupation is in the 1992 order. It empowers the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to take action in cases of overcrowding, mismanagement or inadequate facilities. These provisions remain in force and are quite separate from this process. My officials have already put in place liaison arrangements with both the Housing Executive and district councils to ensure that the two pieces of legislation are integrated efficiently and effectively.
	The noble Lord, Lord Laird, asked his question a little late. He has now sat down, and I cannot find it. He asked about resources; I have just found it in the list of questions and answers. We do not expect a massive number of new people to be required. I think that no more than about three extra people will be needed in Belfast. If I remember rightly, 15 of the 26 councils have resources to operate this. Ten of them probably need one person. The number is not massive, but resources must be made available. I do not have anything on resources, but it is part of usual government proposals that, if new burdens are put on local government, the resources must necessarily follow. That would be a very sensitive issue because of the transfer of all the powers to local government under the RPA, as has been mentioned. They need clarity, and they need to know that they will not be given new burdens and new functions unless they have the resources to carry them out. I made that clear, as have other Ministers.
	On the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I am absolutely confident that the district council powers will not be misused. This is an important part of the housing function of environmental officers. They are very professional and caring, but unfortunately there is a legacy in Northern Ireland in some ways—a legacy that applies here in England, too. I am not saying that this is the case in Northern Ireland, because they are not involved in running housing, but too many politicians in the past have promised people, "Vote for us and we will keep your rents down". But they never said, "But we won't have the money to repair the houses". That has caused a lot of the trouble with public-sector housing in this country. Obviously the order deals with private-sector tenancies, but the pressure is still there. By and large, offering low rents means that landlords will not have the income to do repairs, to maintain the property or to bring it up to a good standard. People then live in inadequate housing. We, as a Government, are not prepared to allow that situation to arise—a view that I think is shared by Members across the House—because those people end up being the poorest and most vulnerable people in the worst housing. That is wholly unfair. It also ends up costing the health service a bomb because people tend to be more ill.
	I think I have covered most of the points that have been made, but I will write to noble Lords if I have not covered one or two of them. I congratulate the noble Baroness again, and thank noble Lords for their support.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wireless Telegraphy (Pre-Consolidation Amendments) Order 2006

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27 April be approved. [25th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the order makes pre-consolidation amendments which facilitate, or are otherwise desirable in connection with, the consolidation of six enactments about wireless telegraphy in the Wireless Telegraphy Bill. Those enactments are: the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949; the Marine, &c, Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967; the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967, except Part 1; Part 6 of the Telecommunications Act 1984; the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1998; Part 2 of Chapter 2 of the Communications Act 2003; and other provisions of the 2003 Act so far as they relate to any of the enactments mentioned above.
	The Wireless Telegraphy Bill was introduced in this House on 20 April 2006 and read for a second time on 3 May 2006. It has been referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation of Bills Etc. The Law Commission proposed that the existing legislation be consolidated into a single Act, making the legislation easier for users of the radio spectrum to understand and to use. The Bill is important for several reasons, not least because it is the first consolidation measure to be introduced for some time. Consolidation is an important part of the Government's better regulation agenda. It will assist in making legislation easier to understand and to apply. It further improves the statute book and saves energy, time and costs for those who have to consult it. Ofcom, which will be one of the prime users of the legislation, welcomes the Bill.
	The order is part of this consolidation exercise. It is made under a power in the Communications Act 2003, which gives the Secretary of State power to modify existing legislation by order where it would facilitate or would otherwise be desirable in connection with the consolidation. It therefore assists the consolidation process. Predominantly, the modifications made by the order relate to ensuring consistency of approach in the various enactments, and are largely technical. They make modifications to the existing legislation, which will be reflected in the provisions that are repealed and re-enacted by the consolidation Bill or that affect the consequential amendments made by the consolidation Bill.
	I shall take your Lordships through the key technical points. The first modification removes an anomaly in relation to the treatment of conduct rendered unlawful under Section 7 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 when compared with conduct which is unlawful under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. Such unlawful conduct under the 1967 Act is declared to be an offence under the 1949 Act, and the order ensures that provision for civil proceedings in relation to such conduct is applied to it. This puts it on an equal footing with offences in Part 2 of the 1949 Act, which are aimed at the same mischief—undue or deliberate interference with wireless telegraphy.
	The second modification also removes an anomaly. Under the existing legislation, it is doubtful whether Section 1D of the 1949 Act, which provides the procedure for granting wireless telegraphy licences, would be capable of being extended to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man because it was inserted by regulations made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Those regulations could not have made provision for the islands. This is therefore inconsistent with the other provisions of the 1949 Act. The order modifies the legislation so that all provisions about the granting of wireless telegraphy licences and the making of grants of recognised spectrum access are treated in the same way in this respect. Of course, extension to the islands is not compelled, and any provision may be extended with modifications.
	Paragraph 4 of the schedule corrects an oversight. The 1949 Act contains a particular provision about forfeiture following conviction for an offence under that Act. There is also a general provision about forfeiture following conviction in the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. There is corresponding provision in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The class of offences to which the particular provision applies has been extended by the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the Broadcasting Act 1990. The general provision has been disapplied in relation to some of those offences, but not all. This modification ensures that the general provision is disapplied in relation to all offences to which the particular provision is applied.
	The modification in paragraph 5 aligns a provision relating to wireless telegraphy licences with the corresponding provision for grants of recognised spectrum access. It amends Section 4(5) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1998 so that Ofcom can revoke or vary a wireless telegraphy licence if it is necessary or expedient to do so for the purpose of complying with international obligations of the United Kingdom as defined by Section 405 of the Communications Act 2003. This mirrors the corresponding provision for grants of RSA, which we consider to be appropriate. The 2003 Act definition may be wider than the current description in the 1998 Act, but we think that little would be covered by the former that is not covered by the latter. Of course, there may also be provision about revocation and variation of a wireless telegraphy licence in the licence itself.
	Paragraph 6 ensures consistency in definitions in the Acts being consolidated. The definitions concerned are "broadcast", "frequency", "information" and "international obligation of the United Kingdom". Broadly speaking, the definitions in the Communications Act 2003 will be applied to undefined references to those terms in the 1949 Act, in Part 2 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 and in Part 6 of the 1984 Act. We consider that appropriate in the context of each relevant term.
	Paragraph 7 of the schedule relates to disclosure of information. There are provisions relating to such disclosure in a number of enactments. These provisions allow information obtained under one Act to be used by Ministers and other government bodies for the purpose of carrying out certain governmental functions which are normally referenced as functions under listed Acts and statutory instruments. Some of these disclosure provisions provide for disclosure of information in relation to the 1984 and 2003 Acts, but not the other enactments being consolidated.
	The effect of paragraph 7 is to treat all provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Bill in the same way as regards disclosure of information provisions in certain enactments. If that was not done, it would lead to some anomalous results—disclosure provisions would cover provisions about making grants of RSA but not wireless telegraphy licences, and would cover provisions about type approval and marking of apparatus but not the use and sale of apparatus. That is because of the consequential amendments that would be made to references in the 1984 and 2003 Acts in the enactments mentioned in paragraph 7. We think consistency of approach is desirable—hence the modification.
	Paragraph 8 also ensures consistent treatment in the legislation being consolidated. It enables the variety of provision mentioned in Section 402(3) of the 2003 Act to be made in relation to all order-making and regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State re-enacted in the Wireless Telegraphy Bill. That will better reflect the order-making and regulation-making powers of Ofcom, and will ensure consistency when there is a power exercisable by either Ofcom or the Secretary of State.
	Paragraph 9 has a similar aim. It enables the same variety of provision to be made by Her Majesty by Order in Council when extending provisions to the Channel Islands or Isle of Man. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27 April be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his explanation of this order. I am even more grateful to the Hansard writers for taking down his words so that I can interpret them in a rather more relaxed fashion in due course. Of course, this order is welcome because it is a prerequisite to the Wireless Telegraphy Bill, which we now have before us. As the Minister has explained, it is the first consolidation Bill for a very long time. One thing that we are all in favour of is consolidation Bills wherever possible. The pity of it is that we do not have more of them.
	However, the procedure involved with this order is a little peculiar. One of the powers in the Wireless Telegraphy Bill concerning the repeals and amendments to the 2003 Act specifically repeals the power to make this order. Of course, the order is timely. It has to be implemented the minute before the Bill becomes an Act, so that, in effect, it is on the statute book and then affects the content of the Bill. What I find difficult to understand is how someone back in 2003 envisaged this necessity arising and wrote it into the 2003 Act very specifically so that we can now repeal it when the new Bill becomes an Act. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that.
	I should like to raise two further minor points. First, the Explanatory Memorandum to the order explains the policy background. It says that,
	"consolidation falls under the general heading of simplification . . . bringing together different regulations into a more manageable form and restating the law more clearly".
	If one looks at Schedule 9 to the Wireless Telegraphy Bill, only two Acts are completely repealed. Most of the others are only quite marginally repealed. In some cases, it is only specific sections that are repealed. While I am prepared to accept that this may simplify the law and make it more straightforward, it occurs to me that it probably has not greatly reduced what I would call the body of the law, which I suspect if one stood it in a vertical heap would still be nearly one foot high.
	My other point is also minor. The Explanatory Note states that,
	"the amendment widens the circumstances in which a licence may be revoked".
	Finally, it states:
	"A regulatory impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as it has no impact on the costs of business".
	It occurs to me that if you widen the circumstances under which a licence might be revoked, there could be a quite dramatic impact on the "costs of business". I wonder whether those statements are factually consistent. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain that.
	Having said all that, this is a welcome order. Even more welcome is the Wireless Telegraphy Bill, which I somewhat wish that I had not bothered to look at because if I had not, I would not have had to raise these questions.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, we welcome the order. However, I would welcome a response from the Minister on why this order has missed the opportunity to address certain technological developments in short-range FM transmitter devices. One of the more commonly known products to use this technology is the iTrip. The Government and Ofcom continue to bury their heads in the sand over the use of devices that broadcast over only a very limited area. Not only has that failure encouraged the continued illegal use of those devices, the Government must be missing out on considerable tax revenue from a device that a number of other countries, including the United States, have deemed acceptable for use and for regulation. That is all the more disappointing considering that we will have to return to this issue following the European Union's recommendation that member states consider their current legislation. I would welcome the Minister's response to that.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that I can explain very easily why this was put in the order. The order was put in the Communications Act 2003. In fact, it did not require great foresight. The issue of consolidating wireless telegraphy had been around since the 1990s when the Law Commission suggested it. Therefore, it was sensible forethought to say that we would need to come to that. The only thing that needs explaining is why it has taken from 2003 to today to do that: there were other parts of this legislation which required to be implemented and they were given a priority. I do not think that it will reduce the body of law. But the point of consolidation is not to reduce the body of law; it is to consolidate and to put it in one place.
	It is not usual to think in terms of regulatory impact assessment. It is assumed that there will be no major costs to business or adverse regulatory impact. This is essentially consolidation of existing legislation. Some of it is left in previous Bills because not every provision in the Acts being consolidated relates to wireless telegraphy. Therefore, it is not appropriate for all those provisions to be consolidated—repealed or re-enacted—because some of them cover other issues.
	Finally, on the question about the order not taking account of technological developments, that is always inherent in consolidation of this sort. One is not trying to move the legislation forward. One is simply trying to bring it together in one place. Where there are European developments taking place, people tend to want to see what those are before making changes to legislation. Otherwise, you simply have to do the exercise twice. Therefore, with those explanations of what we are doing, I hope that noble Lords will approve the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 pm.

Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.20 to 8.30 pm.]

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 23.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 117:
	Page 26, line 14, after "is" insert "capable of being made"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 150. I am somewhat struck that we have few devotees of the Bill in the Chamber at this time of night. The majority of my colleagues on these Benches are in a much better place, celebrating a special event for my noble friend Lady Thatcher, so I wish them well in their absence. I am sure their good wishes are with me, but not their votes. I am aware that on the other side several colleagues of the noble Lord on the Front Bench are not exactly away from the House, but are upstairs watching an important football match. I understand that the Minister has made sure that we will be kept informed of vital developments, for which I am most grateful.
	These probing amendments on Clause 23 have been tabled to ask just how available for use a weapon has to be in order for a person to be guilty of the new offence in this clause. I should make it clear that I support the creation of the new offence of using an accomplice to conceal weapons. We accept that there is evidence that a number of cases are not proceeded with for lack of a weapon, so it is hoped that this provision might assist in the conviction of more criminals. It is certainly always a worry when someone uses a person or a child to mind weapons for him.
	Subsection (1) of Clause 23 provides that it is an offence for a person to use someone else to hide or carry a dangerous weapon so as to make the weapon available to the first person for an unlawful purpose. Subsection (2) then sets out circumstances in which a weapon is to be regarded as being available to the first person. The Explanatory Notes state that this is a non-exhaustive list, which is without doubt an understatement. However, in the circumstances I do not object to that. It would be impossible to set out an exhaustive list in primary legislation of this type. But what kind of guidelines will be given to the CPS when it seeks to determine which cases should be prosecuted, and in what way? Further, what guidelines will be given to the police when they are considering making an arrest? Or will the question be left to be decided on a case-by-case basis in the courts? What work have the Government carried out so far on this matter?
	I put these questions to the Minister in a basic and practical way. For example, what if a person asks someone else to mind a gun for him and the minder, either at the behest of the first person or on his own initiative, breaks down the gun into separate parts so that it cannot be used until it has been reassembled? Is that weapon still considered to be available within the context of the offence in this clause? Again, what if the minder, either on his own initiative or at the behest of the owner of the weapon, hides the parts of the gun in different places, not close to each other but at some distance? Is that weapon still available under the drafting of this subsection? Lastly, what if the owner breaks down the gun into its component parts and asks different people to mind the weapon? Is that weapon still available under the drafting of this subsection?
	What I am trying to do here is to ask probing questions from the standpoint of someone who wants to ensure that this new offence really does bite and that people cannot get around it by using easy and devious means. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clause 23(1) makes it an offence for a person to use someone else to look after, hide or transport a dangerous weapon so as to facilitate that weapon being available to the person for an unlawful purpose. The requirement of an "unlawful purpose" means, broadly speaking, that the offence of using someone to mind a weapon is committed by a person in any circumstance where it would be an offence for that person to possess the weapon. Clause 23(2) then sets out circumstances in which a weapon is to be regarded as available for an unlawful purpose. The purpose of this subsection is thus to provide a gloss on and to clarify what is meant by a weapon being available for an unlawful purpose.
	The effect of these amendments, as has been explained, would be to make clear when a weapon is available by reference to when it is capable of being made available. The mismatch might well be confusing. Prosecutors and others might well wonder why, if it is enough for the offence to be made out if a weapon is capable of being made available, the offence in Clause 23(1)(b) refers to the weapon as "being available". As the clause is currently drafted, it already covers a wide range of circumstances in which the offence of using someone to mind a weapon can be committed. In particular it should be noted that by virtue of subsection (1)(b), the circumstances need only "facilitate" or be "intended to facilitate" the weapon being available for an unlawful purpose. Therefore the offence can be committed even if the weapon is not in fact available in that way. For example, if person A gives person B a weapon to look after, the offence may be committed even if person A cannot get the weapon back whenever he or she wants. It should also be noted that the use of the word "include" in subsection (2) indicates that the cases set out in that subsection are not exhaustive. I believe that that should cover the point raised by the noble Baroness. It needs to be remembered, particularly in the context of the questions she has asked—where a gun is broken down into its component parts—that that would still, in our view, constitute a firearm.
	We think that we have drafted the clause in a way that means that a weapon could be classified as available if broken into components and if held by different people if it could be recovered by the person who used another to mind it. We think that we have drafted the clause in a way that covers the point that the noble Baroness has drawn to our attention.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful for that clarification and for the Minister setting it against the context of the provisions of subsection (1)(b) and the use of the word "include" in subsection (2). We will have an opportunity to look further at the clause in general during the clause stand part debate of my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 117A and 117B not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 117C:
	Page 26, line 22, after "section" insert "141 or"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendments Nos. 117C and 117D extend the definition of a dangerous weapon to cover all offensive weapons rather than the more limited definition as currently drafted. In order to make the legislation effective and useful in all circumstances, it is sensible to bring all such weapons within the scope of the provisions. These amendments achieve that aim.
	Amendments Nos. 117E and 117F amend the sentencing provisions and are consequential on the extension of the definition of a dangerous weapon in Clause 23 to cover all offensive weapons. These amendments are required to bring the sentencing provisions into line with the extension of the definition of a dangerous weapon. I trust that noble Lords will find it within themselves to support the amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 117D:
	Page 26, line 23, after "applies (" insert "specified offensive weapons,"
	On Question, amendment agreed to
	On Question, Whether Clause 23, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

The Earl of Shrewsbury: I have given notice that I object to Clause 23 standing part of the Bill. I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee, chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council and honorary president of the Gun Trade Association.
	This is a probing objection proposed on behalf of the British Shooting Sports Council. The council is an umbrella organisation representing the major shooting associations in the United Kingdom. Through direct membership of, or affiliation to, the respective associations, the council represents the interests of some three quarters of a million certificate holders and an even greater number of other people who participate, or are employed in some form or another, in shooting sports.
	Firearms legislation has grown up piecemeal over many years. In many areas it is now so complicated that it creates unnecessary difficulty for those who enforce it and is almost beyond the comprehension of those—including the council and those it represents—who must comply with that legislation.
	In May 2004, the Home Office commenced a comprehensive review of firearms legislation by publishing a consultation paper. In that paper, the Home Office undertook that,
	"specific proposals will be made in the light of comments received in response to this consultation".
	There have been some 4,000 comprehensive responses to the consultation paper from individuals and organisations. These have not yet been analysed at the Home Office; there has been no feedback to consultees and no further progress in the process laid down by the Cabinet Office.
	In a further consultation paper, Tackling Crime, the Government undertook to consult on various issues relating to the sale and possession of imitation firearms. Part 2 of the Bill has been brought forward but there has been no prior consultation on it. Part 2 should be removed from the Bill so that a consultation process can be properly completed and informed decisions taken on the basis of proper research to identify and target the real problem. Ideally, Part 2 should be considered during the Home Office review of firearms legislation and any changes should form part of a comprehensive and logical review that will produce a body of law which is simpler but no less effective.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury has given notice that he objects to Clause 23 standing part of the Bill within the proper context of wanting to raise a debate about the failure of the consultation process. Already in Part 1, much of what I have been saying has been to emphasise the importance of consultation working effectively and engaging with all those who will be affected by the legislation, so that they feel the outcome is fair and equitable and will want to take the measures forward.
	I understand my noble friend's difficulties with Part 2 and his frustration with the way in which the Government have gone ahead on this matter. As he said, the consultation was launched in May 2004 and we know that there have been in excess of 4,000 responses. He said that, as he understood it, the results had not yet been analysed, but I seem to recall that at Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said the responses had now all been read and analysed and that the Government were considering how to proceed. When the Minister comes to respond, I would be grateful if he could say whether he understands that those responses have now been analysed.
	I was concerned that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, went on to say:
	"A summary of the responses will be published in due course".
	She did not even dangle in front of us that carrot of "soon" or "very soon", although "very soon" would be expecting an awful lot from the Home Office. No, I will not be nasty tonight. Or perhaps I will be later on—who knows?
	Of course I understand and sympathise with the noble Baroness's view expressed on Second Reading that the Government have,
	"a duty to act immediately when it becomes apparent that steps are needed to protect public safety".—[Official Report, 29/3/06; col. 847.]
	I know that my noble friend agrees with that. He is not trying to undermine public safety, but it is right to ask the Government to justify their actions in the Bill against the background of the less than persuasive statistics that have been highlighted throughout our debates and those in another place, and the Government's failure to publish any summary of the consultation responses before reaching Committee in this House. After all, they have had 24 weeks since First Reading in this House in which to make that progress.
	I hope that the Minister will today announce a timetable which will give us access to the analysis of the Home Office responses. I also hope that he will confirm that what the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said on Second Reading has taken place and that there has been an analysis. We need to see that before the Bill leaves this House. At the moment, Part 2 does not resolve any confusions that arose when the consultation was going ahead—in many ways, it exacerbates them.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his contribution and to the noble Baroness for her questions. The noble Earl did not actually argue against the specifics of the clause; this debate is more a convenient point at which to air his understandable concerns and frustrations at the fruits of the consultation.
	It is true that we received a very large response to the consultation. There were around 4,500 submissions, many of which were very comprehensive. I can confirm that they have all been read and analysed. I can also confirm that we are giving very careful consideration to how to proceed and that we intend to produce a summary of responses.
	The clue to the difficulty, if difficulty there be, is that we received 4,500 submissions. There is a great deal of interest in this, and pulling together a summary and conducting the analysis has been very complex. I make no apology for the fact that we are taking our time over it, although it is regrettable that we have had to move on and address some of the lacunae that exist in firearms legislation before we have been able to produce an analysis and summary of the points that were produced by the consultation.
	I take it as axiomatic that we have a duty as a Government to act when there is an apparent problem. It is always better, neater and more convenient to do these things in one space, at one point, but we must recognise that there are current and live issues that need to be dealt with. In particular, the increased use of imitation firearms for the purposes of criminal activity, on which we have statistics, means that we need to place restrictions generally on their availability.
	One can always criticise consultation. It is never perfect, but we have tried to be honest and open in the way in which we have approached this. We have also tried to ensure that there was the maximum opportunity for people to make responses. The noble Baroness asked for a timetable. I cannot give her one across the Dispatch Box but I will talk to our officials and try to get a clearer idea so that we can provide some sort of timetable if at all possible. I will happily write to the noble Baroness and others who are involved in this debate, particularly the noble Earl, to ensure that they are kept informed of how we intend to proceed regarding the outcome of the review.

The Earl of Shrewsbury: I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful reply.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 24 [Penalties etc. for offence under s. 23]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 117E and 117F:
	Page 26, line 30, after "section" insert "141 or"
	Page 26, line 30, after "1988 (" insert "specified offensive weapons,"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Turner of Camden: If Amendment No. 117G is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 117H by reason of pre-emption.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: moved Amendment No. 117G:
	Page 26, line 42, leave out subsections (4) to (8).

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I indicated to the Committee that we supported the new offence of using someone to mind a weapon, but we cannot support the mandatory minimum sentences in Clause 24. It is a matter of very serious principle. Mandatory minimum sentences prevent the court taking full account of the individual circumstances of a case. They can result in disproportionate sentences in contravention of Article 49.3 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which provides that the severity of penalties must not be disproportionate to the criminal offence. They distort the sentencing process.
	It is a tragedy that, over the nine years of the new Labour Government, a tendency has been shown to mistrust the judges. It has now got to the point where the Prime Minister has criticised a judge in the case involving Afghan refugees—in which I declare an interest because I was involved—which the Government intend to appeal. That is an absolutely disgraceful state of affairs.
	This is just another reflection of the lack of trust shown in judges. The reality is that the independent judiciary does not lack any motivation in passing sentences. It pays heed to the Sentencing Guidelines Council that was set up by the Government to give guidance and direction about the appropriate sentence in a particular case. The Sentencing Guidelines Council has the job of looking at sentences across the board, so that an offence of a particular gravity will be punished by a sentence which is the same as for another offence of the same gravity. Here we have a situation where it is perfectly possible to imagine that an under-18 year-old, for example, will be handed a firearm by some criminal just as the premises are raided by the police and find that they are caught by this clause. A minimum sentence of three years would then be passed under subsection (5). If they were over 18, the minimum sentence would be five years. It is quite unnecessary. The arbitrary nature of the sentence is only qualified at all by the use of the words,
	"unless it is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which justify",
	passing a lesser sentence.
	That phrase, which is the same as in Section 51 of the Firearms Act 1968, was considered in the case of Rehman recently. The Court of Appeal held that exceptional circumstances exist if to impose five years' imprisonment would result in an arbitrary and disproportionate sentence. For a sentence to be called arbitrary and disproportionate requires a high threshold indeed. I fail to understand why this Government, having introduced the Sentencing Guidelines Council and endeavoured to reach parity of sentencing across the board, should mistrust their judges not to carry out the recommendations of the Sentencing Guidelines Council. It is quite unnecessary. It is for those reasons that I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: In considering penalties for new offences, existing penalties for related offences were used as guidance. This includes, in the case of unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm, a minimum sentence of five years. Amendment No. 117G would remove the provision of a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in the case of a prohibited firearm being given to another person to mind and when the offender is an adult in England and Wales.
	In robustly tackling gun crime, we must take tough measures and avoid creating additional anomalies in the sentencing regimes. The penalties for this new offence were looked at in the light of existing offences and are in line with those applicable for offences of possession of weapons. This includes the five-year minimum sentence for possession of a prohibited firearm. These penalties are not disproportionate when you take into account the serious nature of the offence. I am sure that the noble Lord would not dismiss that point.
	By diluting the penalties, we would create a measure that maintained the advantage for the offender of using someone else, who in some cases may well be a child—that is undoubtedly likely to be the case—to look after their gun. It is essential that we remove that anomaly, and the inclusion of the five-year minimum meets that need. Subsections (4) and (5) provide for not imposing the minimum sentence in exceptional circumstances, so there is that scope. It is worth pointing out that before the introduction of the minimum sentence, the average sentence for possession of prohibited firearms was 18 months. We need that important context.
	We cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment. We do not support it, because of the need to remove the anomaly, and it is for that reason that we included the five-year minimum sentence.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am never going to persuade the Government on this matter, I am sure, so I shall consider my position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 117H:
	Page 27, line 5, at end insert—
	"( ) In relation to times before the commencement of paragraph 180 of Schedule 7 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43), the reference in subsection (4) to a sentence of imprisonment, in relation to an offender aged under 21 at the time of conviction, is to be read as a reference to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 117H has become desirable following a recent Court of Appeal judgment concerning minimum sentence provisions introduced into the Firearms Act 1968 by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Clause 24 closely follows those provisions and is affected in the same way.
	The minimum sentence is a tough measure aimed at combating gun crime. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, courts must impose a minimum sentence of three years' detention for 16 to 17 year-olds or five years' imprisonment for offenders aged 18 and above. In the recent Court of Appeal case, the court judged that the minimum sentence of five years' imprisonment cannot be imposed on 18 to 20 year-olds as to do so would conflict with other general sentencing provisions requiring that offenders aged under 21 should not receive sentences of imprisonment.
	The Home Office view, and the government view for that matter, is that this situation is already catered for by Section 96 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, which converts sentences of imprisonment into sentences of detention in the case of 18 to 20 year-olds. We are currently exploring the options for challenging the court's decision through a future case and, if necessary, we can amend the existing provisions in the Firearms Act through an order-making power contained in Section 333 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Unfortunately, that order-making power cannot be used to amend the provisions in this Bill, so we have concluded that it would be helpful to make this amendment now to put the matter beyond doubt. The situation will be resolved completely when the relevant parts of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 are implemented to abolish detention in young offender institutions, but no firm timescale has been set for this as yet.
	Amendment No. 118 corrects a mistake in Clause 24, which sets out the penalties for the offence of using someone to mind a weapon in Clause 23. We have identified that there was a minor drafting defect in subsection (10)(a), and as a consequence we are making a technical amendment so that the legislation refers to "an offence under Section 23" rather than "an offence under this Section". That is necessary because it is Clause 23 that contains the offence of using someone to mind a weapon, while Clause 24 only sets out the penalties for that offence. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 118:
	Page 27, line 42, leave out "this section" and insert "section 23"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 25 [Minimum sentences for certain firearms offences]:

Lord Thomas of Gresford: moved Amendment No. 118A:
	Page 28, line 25, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
	"(2) Section 51A is repealed."

Baroness Turner of Camden: I have to tell your Lordships that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 118B by virtue of pre-emption.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I will be very short. This is another statement of principle on our part to abolish the concept of minimum sentences. I do not propose to add anything to that which I have already said. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not going to be quite so short, because while of course we object to the point of principle that the noble Lord has enunciated, it is worth putting on the record why we feel it is right and necessary to introduce the measure that we have.
	Although gun crime is low overall—it accounts for something like 0.4 per cent of all recorded crime—it has been rising. In 2001–02, handguns were used in 5,871 crimes, an increase of 46 per cent on the previous year. Handguns were used in 58 per cent of armed crime. There were 97 fatalities and 558 serious injuries resulting from crimes involving firearms. Some of this, as we all readily acknowledge, is associated with gang culture, which itself is much linked to the illegal drug trade. The Government are determined to tackle this serious problem. We want to deter criminals from using firearms and ensure that they receive appropriately tough sentences on conviction.
	That is worth saying, because it is important that people understand that we have made progress. In 2004–05, as I explained earlier, there was a 5 per cent decrease in the number of crimes in which firearms were used. Handgun offences fell by 15 per cent and the number of firearm crimes resulting in serious or fatal injury fell by 5 per cent. The most recent statistics, for the year ending December 2005, show that firearm offences excluding air weapons were down 3 per cent and that fatal injuries, thankfully, were down 30 per cent.
	We contend that our strategy on tackling gun crime is working and we feel that the minimum sentence has played a part in that. But there is more to do. We cannot rest on our laurels. Gun crime is still a serious problem and we need to maintain our efforts to combat it. If we were to accept the noble Lord's amendment at this point, it would be sending exactly the wrong message. We need to maintain our commitment and demonstrate to those who seek to conduct their lives in a world of criminality that we are serious about putting them out of circulation and taking appropriate measures to tackle something that, while it is a diminishing problem for the moment, is a problem that we need to be vigilant in tackling.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am perfectly certain that Her Majesty's judges are quite capable of giving a message to those who wish to carry guns. I do not think that the Government are right to interfere with the independence of the judges, and in particular their sentencing powers, in the way that they do. The guidelines on firearms offences could have been issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council—and almost certainly have been issued by it—which the judges would faithfully follow. I do not think it is the imposition of minimum sentences that makes the difference; it is the fact that Her Majesty's judges are alive to the problem within our society of a rise in gun crime and, as has happened in so many fields, would have dealt with it without the necessity for this interference with their independence. For the moment I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment but I will come back to the principle on many occasions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 118B:
	Page 28, line 42, at end insert—
	"( ) After subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) In the case of an offender who is a foreign national, the Secretary of State shall give directions for such an offender to be deported immediately following his release from custody.
	(2B) The Secretary of State shall lay annually before each House of Parliament a report on deportations carried out under subsection (2A).""

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving the amendment, the temptation to criticise the Home Office overcomes me.
	The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that foreign nationals who are imprisoned for firearms offences should be deported immediately at the end of their sentence. By confining the scope to those who have committed firearms offences, this amendment is properly permissible within the scope of the Bill. It would also put a duty on the Secretary of State to make an annual report to Parliament on the deportations that happen as a result.
	I tabled this amendment on 27 April when it became clear that the Home Office was in a shambles over the release into the community since 1999 of 1,023 foreign prisoners without the prior consideration of deportation that should have taken place. I gave notice during our first day in Committee on 26 April that I would take this step.
	The following week the Government made a Statement which revealed that the position was even worse than anticipated—288 more foreign criminals were released after August 2005; that is, after the then Home Secretary explicitly knew that there was a problem. The rate of release therefore accelerated while Mr Clarke was Home Secretary. When he made his Statement to Parliament on 3 May, giving details of the number of serious foreign criminals who had been released without consideration of deportation, he said that the number was about 90. On Monday 8 May, his replacement as Home Secretary, the right honourable John Reid said:
	"The number of released prisoners who fall into the category of having committed the most serious offences is not 90; it could be as high as 150 and, indeed, depending on what definition you use, if you were to include in that armed robbery, it could be several hundred".
	At Prime Minister's Question Time on 3 May the Prime Minister made a clear promise:
	"I think that it is now time that anybody who is convicted of an imprisonable offence and who is a foreign national is deported".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/5/06; col. 960.]
	Not to be outdone, the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, popped up later on BBC's "Question Time" and repeated the commitment. On the afternoon of 3 May the then Home Secretary, Mr Charles Clarke, stated:
	"The guiding principle will be that foreign nationals guilty of criminality should expect to be deported".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/5/06; col. 971.]
	The story continues in the same vein. The Prime Minister at his weekly briefing of journalists on Monday 8 May repeated the pledge that he had made at Prime Minister's Question Time on Wednesday 3 May:
	"If somebody commits a serious enough criminal offence to go to jail in this country and they are not a British citizen, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the country to say at the conclusion of that sentence, you leave the country".
	The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor then threw doubt on whether Mr Blair knew what he was doing, by saying that he doubted whether all foreign prisoners could be deported automatically. But after the noble and learned Lord had said that, the Prime Minister rebutted it and said,
	"I am absolutely sure we can deliver on this".
	The Prime Minister said that he would consider introducing new laws to override the criminals' human rights and enable them to be deported. He said that the rights of British citizens should be more balanced with those of foreign criminals or terror suspects.
	Throughout the past two weeks, the Prime Minister's commitment has remained the same in all his comments, including, I understand, those made today. During our dinner break I checked the BBC news, and confirmed that the Prime Minister was clear in his commitment to deport criminals. There was a fascinating rider that stated that Downing Street later issued a communiqué to "clarify" the position; in other words, Downing Street thought that the Prime Minister had got it wrong.
	In this amendment, I am simply trying to help the Government to carry out the Prime Minister's commitment. As I said, my amendment covers only those who are subject to imprisonment for firearms offences, but they are exactly the kind of people that the Prime Minister wants to deport. The Government should put up or shut up. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment, because I recognise that she has raised an important issue: how can we most effectively deal with foreign nationals who have completed their custodial term? The amendment is tied to some narrow but specific offences, but the principle applies to many other criminal convictions. We have said clearly that we recognise that improvements need to be made in this area and, on 3 May, the former Home Secretary set out the Government's initial views on revised policies and procedures for handling foreign national prisoners. I was grateful on that occasion for the encouraging comments from the noble Baroness that the opposition Front Bench would support any necessary legislation—and she has tabled an amendment which, I suppose, she could argue gives effect to that commitment. More recently, on Monday, the new Home Secretary provided an update on the progress being made in the operation to deal with the 1,023 prisoners released from prison without the consideration for deportation that they should have received.
	We support the view that the expectation should be that those foreign nationals committing serious crimes are deported as soon as possible after the completion of their sentence—ideally, immediately after it, as the amendment envisages. Indeed, we have already announced that we will consult on broadening the criteria to ensure that many more foreign national criminals would face deportation. We believe that a range of issues must be tackled to tighten up the removal of foreign national prisoners and the need for a holistic, end-to-end approach will underpin the consultation paper.
	For example, we need to be better at identifying whether those arrested, charged and convicted of crimes are foreign nationals. Those questions are already asked and in many cases foreign nationals are correctly identified, especially once a person reaches a prison. But we will look to devoting more effort and more resources to ensure that foreign nationals cannot avoid detection by being untruthful or unco-operative and that they are identified earlier in the criminal justice process. As has been mentioned, we intend to put in place a clearer and more robust approach as to which crimes trigger consideration for deportation. For those committing relevant crimes, we will change the mindset so that deportation becomes the norm and, I repeat, the guiding principle must be that foreign national criminals should expect to be deported.
	However, we cannot discount the fact that there will be some cases—for example, where removal is not possible for the time being, due to practical obstacles such as the need for redocumentation by the home country or international obligations—where deportation is prevented. Because of such occasional cases, the Government would not support the automatic link between conviction and deportation provided for in the amendment, but we support the principle that deportation should be the norm in such cases.
	Other relevant cases include the referral mechanisms between criminal justice agencies and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to ensure that when a foreign national is in custody there is good notice of their release date. This will enable consideration of deportation to happen in advance of their release and for any appeal against deportation to start during that time. We will also be looking at ways other than deportation to remove foreign national prisoners from our shores—for example, by seeing whether we can make more of existing prisoner transfer arrangements under which foreign nationals are sent back to their own country to serve their time.
	As I said, we intend to consult on these and other measures. In the mean time, we will continue to tighten up existing procedures to ensure that the serious shortcomings identified do not recur and that we build our capacity to remove all foreign national prisoners for whom deportation is exactly the right course. I also assure the Committee that the Government will continue to keep both Houses updated on issues relating to the deportation and removal of foreign national prisoners.
	Again, I thank the noble Baroness for raising the issue. I accept that it has been raised in an entirely constructive light. I think that the amendment is inappropriate in that, as the noble Baroness herself acknowledged, it is rather narrow in what it captures. I repeat that we are committed to tackling the issue of foreign national prisoners and we intend to be robust in fulfilling that commitment. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment because I have no doubt that the issues to which it draws attention will be a part of the Government's consultation.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The word "consultation" drives fear into my heart when I consider the outcome of the consultation on Part 2 of the Bill and the lack of constructive response in that regard. The Minister is always very constructive in the way that he responds to amendments, and I appreciate the way in which he has carefully set out what the Government will be doing. The difficulty is that what he has tried to set out in a very straightforward way contrasts dramatically—how can I put this in parliamentary language?—with the clear commitments given by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister should know very well that he has absolutely no hope in this world of carrying out those commitments because of our commitments to the Human Rights Act and the ECHR, which this Government espoused. I find that hypocrisy—it is nothing less than hypocrisy—from another Minister, as against the honesty of this Minister in setting out what the Home Office hopes it will be able to do, very difficult to take.
	The Minister was right: when we had the Statement, I made it clear that if appropriate legislation came forward, I would accept it within the context of proper consideration and examination. At the time that I made that commitment, which was made in all honesty, as is always the case, I was disappointed but not too surprised to hear one of the Minister's noble friends—I will name him, although he is not in his place at the moment—the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, express disbelief that I gave that commitment and that I was telling the truth. He not only stated it but looked astonished at his colleagues and obviously thought that I would do no such thing. I keep to my word and if the Government ever bring forward their own legislation, I shall be astonished that they do but I shall consider it in a proper way.
	I am also aware that we have been admonished by another of the Minister's noble friends, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who has said that if we intend to vote on something, we should not put it off just because there is no one about. As I mentioned earlier, I am aware that all my colleagues, bar some wonderful supporters here—quality not quantity—are at another place having a very well earned break, celebrating at a special dinner with my noble friend Lady Thatcher. I am aware that it is an understatement to say that we are thin on the ground but I feel that it is time for the Government to put up or shut up. They have said that they are going to do what my amendment does. Can they be believed? Do they want to vote for what their Prime Minister has said? My amendment would fulfil the Prime Minister's commitment, so I wish to test the opinion of the Committee. Should the Prime Minister be believed or not?

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 118B) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 51.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 25 agreed to.

Baroness Crawley: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Conventions

A message was brought from the Commons that they concur with the Lords message of 25 April relating to Conventions, and have made the following orders:
	That, accepting the primacy of the House of Commons, a Select Committee of 11 Members be appointed to join with a committee appointed by the House of Lords as the Joint Committee on Conventions, to consider the practicality of codifying the key conventions on the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament which affect the consideration of legislation, in particular:
	(A) the Salisbury-Addison convention that the Lords does not vote against measures included in the governing party's manifesto;
	(B) conventions on secondary legislation;
	(C) the convention that government business in the Lords should be considered in reasonable time;
	(D) conventions governing the exchange of amendments to legislation between the two Houses;
	and that the committee should report by Friday 21 July 2006;
	That the Committee shall have power—
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
	House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before ten o'clock.